TMI Blog1978 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1925-26 in the status of an HUF consisting of Shyam Lal and Gulshan Lal, sons of Moti Lal, up to 1947, and from 1947 to 1954 consisting of Shyam Lal and his children and widow as well as the children of Gulshan Lal. It appears that at the time of filing the return for the assessment year 1955-56, the members took a plea of partition in the family. This claim of partition was turned down on the ground that it had not been made by metes and bounds. Thereafter, no claim for partition was made by the assessee before the income-tax authorities. For the assessment year 1963-64, Manohar Lal, son of Shyam Lal, filed a return in the status of an individual, but in the declaration in both the columns, i. e., " me or I/family " exists and Part IV o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the judgment of the AAC, Shyam Lal Moti Lal filed two appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The main point taken in these appeals was that the AAC having found the assessment orders made against the firm, Shyam Lal Moti Lal, as invalid, should have annulled the assessment proceedings treating the same as void ab initio. The Tribunal upheld the objection of Shyam Lal Moti Lal and having found that the firm Shyam Lal Moti Lal had not filed any return held that the assessment orders as against the said firm were liable to be annulled and quashed. Dissatisfied, the Commissioner of Income-tax filed an application under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act for making a reference of the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... biguity in the said return inasmuch as at one place he described himself as an individual whereas at another he mentioned himself to be karta. The proper course for the ITO was to have put this aspect of the matter to Manohar Lal and should have got the mistake corrected. As the returns for the aforesaid assessment years had been filed by Manohar Lal voluntarily, it was the duty of the ITO to have passed orders on the same. It is correct that as the said returns could not be treated to be that of the bigger HUF, Shyam Lal Moti Lal, there is nothing in law to prohibit the ITO to treat the same as that of Manohar Lal in his individual capacity or on behalf of his smaller HUF. The Tribunal should have, therefore, not annulled the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
