Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 331 1973 SLD 331 (1973) 89 ITR 317
Calcutta High Court
MATTER No. 542 OF 1968, NOVEMBER 26, 1971
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
Dr. D. Pal and R.N. Dutt for the Applicant. Dipak Sen and Arjit Chowdhury for the
Respondent.

Shyam Sundar Bajaj

v.

Income Tax Officer*

Law:

Section:

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for Assessment years 1951-52 to 1962-63 - In a suit filed by petitioner for dissolution of certain partnership business, father of petitioner took defence that said property did not belong to any partner but to HUF and said family had been disrupted - On basis of statement of 'P', ITO issued notices for reopening of certain assessment of HUF - Whether since according to statement of 'P' HUF had been disrupted and ITO did not make independent enquiry to find out whether HUF was in existence or not, income of said HUF could not be assessed by giving notice under section 148 - Held, yes FACTS One P, who was the father of the petitioner, had stated in connection with a suit that there was a joint Hindu family and certain properties and assets belonged to the said joint Hindu family. The petitioner filed suit for the dissolution of certain partnership business. In the said suit P took the defence that the said property did not belong to any partner but to the said joint Hindu family and the said family had been disrupted in 1963. Relying on the statement of P, ITO issued notice under section 148 to the petitioner for opening of certain assessment of that Hindu undivided family. The petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging legality of the impugned notice. It was stated that there were no materials for the ITO, to form any belief that there was any Hindu undivided family at the relevant time or that the income of the family had escaped assessment. The notice was also challenged on the ground that the notice had been served on the Hindu undivided family without indicating on whom the notices had to be served. HELD Whether there are reasons for reopening a particular assessment or not, must necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case. The reasons indicated were the statements contained in the affidavit of P. Prima facie those reasons were not unreasonable. If that information had reached the income-tax department and if on the basis of that information the ITO had formed the belief that there was a HUF and that the income of that HUF had escaped assessment, and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492