Law:

Section:

Section 17A read with section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Assessment - Time limit for completion of - Whether period within which assessment can be made depends upon provisions under which returns are submitted by assessee and, therefore, question whether assessment was barred by time is referable question of law - Held, yes FACTS Until the year 1963-64, the assessee was being assessed in the status of an HUF. The returns for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 were filed without mentioning the status. Returns for 11 years were filed in the status of an individual showing the wealth received on partition of the HUF and also individual wealth. The assessee again filed returns of wealth for 11 years on 26-3-1979, showing his status as individual. The WTO framed the assessment on 31-3-1979, as HUF, as the status up to 1963-64 was in this capacity and the claim of partition was neither made nor accepted. The appeals of the assessee were accepted by the AAC on the ground that the status of the assessee should not be changed in respect of the returns submitted by him. If the WTO wanted to assess in the status of an HUF, then he could take appropriate action. This order of the AAC became final. Then the WTO proceeded to make assessment on the basis of the returns filed on 26-3-1979. The assessee contended before the WTO that belated returns filed on 26-3-1979 were legally not revised returns but this contention was rejected. The objection on limitation was overruled by the AAC but the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee. In application under section 27(3). HELD A question of law did arise in the instant case because the period within which the assessment could be made depends upon the provisions under which the returns were submitted by the assessee and this matter required consideration. Note : The case was decided in favour of the revenue. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava [1988] 170 ITR 556 (MP), CWT v. Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj.), Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinhav. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 722 (Cal.), Nanjappa Textiles v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 109 (Mad.), Vimalchand v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 593 (Raj.) and Mst. Zulekha Begum (Khatoon) v. CIT [1981]…

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