TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rejects Revenue's claim under section 35, limits assessment for Hindu undivided family post-partition.</h1> <h3>H. Kenche Gowda Versus State Of Karnataka</h3> H. Kenche Gowda Versus State Of Karnataka - [1988] 174 ITR 389, 75 CTR 85 Issues involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 regarding the assessment of income from a Hindu undivided family, specifically related to coffee back pool payments and the applicability of sections 30 and 35 of the Act.Assessment of Coffee Back Pool Payments:The case involved a Hindu undivided family that was assessed up to 1977-78, after which it partitioned. The dispute arose when the Commissioner invoked section 35 of the Act to revise the assessment, arguing that the income from coffee back pool payments should have been assessed in the hands of the undivided family, not the separated coparceners. The Commissioner contended that the income had escaped assessment and should be reassessed in the correct hands.Legal Arguments and Analysis:The Government Advocate argued that under section 35 of the Act, the Commissioner can revise assessments if income has been wrongly assessed. However, the court held that since there was no assessment at all in respect of the undivided family, there was no basis for revision under section 35. The court differentiated between the powers of revision under section 35 and reassessment under section 36, emphasizing that the income must have escaped assessment to trigger reassessment.Applicability of Section 30 and Explanation:The court examined the provisions of section 30 of the Act, which deal with the assessment of income in cases of partition in a Hindu undivided family. The Explanation to section 30(2) was crucial in determining the treatment of income from crops harvested but not disposed of. The court analyzed precedents to interpret the term 'disposed of' in the context of the case involving coffee crop and back pool payments.Conclusion:Ultimately, the court rejected the Revenue's contentions, emphasizing that the revisional power under section 35 did not apply in this case. The court clarified that the assessment should only cover income derived up to the date of partition in the case of a Hindu undivided family. Consequently, the court set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the civil revision petitions.
TaxTMI 