| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 477 1983 SLD 477 (1983) 48 TAX 100 (1982) 138 ITR 19 1983 PTD 438 |
Madras High Court
Tax Case No. 801 to 805 of 1976. January 11, 1982
V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ
S. Narayanaswami and T. V. Ramanathan, for the assessee. J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, for the Commissioner
Tax Case No. 801 to 805 of 1976. January 11, 1982
V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BALASUBRAHMANYAN, JJ
S. Narayanaswami and T. V. Ramanathan, for the assessee. J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, for the Commissioner
N. P. SARASWATHI AMMAL AND OTHERS
VS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Law: Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
Section: 27
Law: Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
Section: 27
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 33(4),2(31)(v)
Section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Body of Individuals - Assessable as - Business bequeathed by testator to his widow and minor sons, was carried on by widow even after sons attained majority - Whether assessment on widow and sons in status of boi justified - Held, on facts, yes - Whether the terms aop and boi are interchangeable or synonymous - Held, no - Whether before a group of persons can be treated as boi, it is necessary that they should have a common intention and a common activity to produce taxable income - Held, no Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Appeal to - Whether in view of facts mentioned under the head 'body of individuals - assessable as' tribunal could entertain revenue's plea, being raised first time before it, that assessee, if not assessable as aop, could be assessed as BOI - Held, yes Words and phrases - 'Association of persons' and 'body of individuals' occurring in section 2(31) of the income-tax act, 1961 FACTS Business bequeathed by the testator to his widow and four sons, was carried on by his widow as all the sons were minors at the relevant time. This position, however, continued even after the sons attained majority. The ITO treated the widow and her sons as an AOP. On second appeal, the Tribunal entertained the department's new plea that even if the widow could not be treated as an AOP, they could still be regarded as BOI and held that the widow and her sons were assessable as a BOI. On reference : HELD It is true that in section 2(31)(v), BOI is placed cheek by jowl with AOP in the classified list of persons, but that is no reason to regard the two terms as interchangeable or synonymous. To hold that a BOI must be equated to an AOP would be to disregard the stage-by-stage evolution of the statutory classification of the different kinds of taxpayers under section 2(31). The difference between an 'association' and a 'body' is too pronounced to be slurred over. While an 'association might well connote an active element of combining or association, a 'body' would include even a comparatively inert mass of people or institution. The only essential attributes of a BOI are that there should be a…
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