Reassessment in individual status upheld where a new HUF plea required fresh facts and had not been raised earlier.

A new ground challenging reassessment in the status of an individual could be refused where it was not raised before the lower income-tax authorities or in the Tribunal appeal, and its determination would require fresh factual inquiry. Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not compel assessment as a Hindu undivided family unless that factual status was established in the reassessment proceedings. Because the assessee had returned the income as individual income under the reassessment notice and the proposed objection depended on unproven assumptions, the Tribunal properly declined leave to raise it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in refusing to permit the assessee to raise for the first time a new ground challenging the reassessment in the status of an individual.

Analysis: The new contention was not raised before the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, or in the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined leave because deciding the point would require investigation of fresh facts, including whether the income sought to be reassessed belonged to a Hindu undivided family or to the assessee individually. Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not compel an assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family where the factual basis for such status was not established in the reassessment proceedings. The assessee had itself returned the income as individual income pursuant to the notice under section 34(1)(a), and the proposed objection depended on factual assumptions that were neither established nor consistent with the assessee's admissions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal committed no error in refusing to allow the new plea, and the reassessment in the status of an individual was upheld.

---