Escaped assessment and impartible estate principles: reassessment failed, HUF status was upheld, and family payment was excluded.

Income already disclosed to and assessed by the revenue does not become "escaped assessment" merely because the original assessment was later set aside for wrong categorisation, so reassessment under section 34 was not justified. An impartible ancestral estate governed by primogeniture may still retain the character of Hindu family property, meaning the holder can be assessed as the managing member of a Hindu undivided family rather than as an individual. A fixed annual payment to the younger brother, made under the family arrangement in substitution of his share, was treated as his own income and not as the assessee's taxable income.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reassessment notice could be sustained on the footing that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 34; (ii) whether an impartible estate governed by primogeniture could still be assessed in the hands of the holder as a Hindu undivided family rather than as an individual; and (iii) whether the annual payment made to the younger brother was deductible from the assessee's income.

Issue (i): whether the reassessment notice could be sustained on the footing that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 34.

Analysis: The income had been fully disclosed and had already been assessed in the first instance, though in a wrong category and the assessment was later set aside. The expression "escaped assessment" was treated as referring to income omitted from assessment because of non-disclosure or similar failure, not to income that was known to the revenue and had already been assessed but was later reopened after a procedural mistake.

Conclusion: The reassessment under section 34 was not justified; this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether an impartible estate governed by primogeniture could still be assessed in the hands of the holder as a Hindu undivided family rather than as an individual.

Analysis: The legal character of an impartible estate did not destroy the joint family character of the ancestral property. The rule of primogeniture affected succession and enjoyment, but did not establish that the holder was the sole owner in the ordinary sense or that the estate could not belong to a Hindu undivided family. The authorities relied on recognized that an impartible estate may still be family property and may descend by survivorship subject to custom.

Conclusion: The assessee could be treated as the managing member of a Hindu undivided family and not as a sole individual owner; this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the annual payment made to the younger brother was deductible from the assessee's income.

Analysis: The allowance was not a voluntary family maintenance payment out of the assessee's income, but a fixed payment made in substitution of the younger brother's share in the estate under the family arrangement. It was treated as the brother's own income rather than as income of the assessee, and therefore did not form part of the assessee's taxable income.

Conclusion: The payment was not assessable as the assessee's income and no deduction question arose against him; this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All referred questions were answered in the assessee's favour, with the result that the impugned assessment on the footing adopted by the revenue could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Income already disclosed to and assessed by the revenue does not become "escaped assessment" merely because the original assessment is later set aside for wrong categorisation, and an impartible ancestral estate governed by primogeniture may still remain Hindu family property for tax purposes.

---