9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were members of an HUF and assessed to income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1958-59. There was a partition in the petitioners' family by a registered document dated 10th November, 1958. The ITO by his order passed on the 10th March, 1964, refused to recognise this partition under s 25A(1) of the 1922 Act. There was an appeal filed against this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59, demand notices were issued against all the petitioners. The petitioners then filed this petition for quashing of the assessment orders passed by the ITO on 8th July, 1974, and the demand notices which are issued in pursuance to these orders. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner No. 1 filed appeals against the assessment orders passed on 8th July, 1974. By order dated 17th January, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the assessment orders dated 8th July, 1974, passed by the ITO for the years 1953-54, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1958-59, does not survive because these orders have already been set aside by the AAC in appeal. As a consequence of the setting aside of these assessment orders by the AAC, the demand notices issued for the years 1956-57 and 1958-59 became invalid and cannot be enforced by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the members. The ITO had to pass orders under s.25A(2) to give effect to the partition. At the stage when the rectification proceedings were taken there was no HUF and consequently no karta. Notice to petitioner No. 1, Balchand Malaiya, who was the karta of the family when the undivided family existed, was insufficient because he, after the partition, was not competent to represent the other mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
