1981 (3) TMI 103 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal Upheld Decision to Cancel Assessment for AOP | Double Taxation Principle

INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus BIHARILAL MULCHAND ROHARA.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Assessment Appellate Commissioner's decision to cancel the assessment under section 144 for the assessment year 1966-67 ... - Issues:1. Assessment cancellation under section 144 for AOP status.2. Taxation of income in the hands of AOP after individual members already assessed.3. Interpretation of section 4 of the IT Act, 1961 in relation to previous assessments.4. Double taxation issue and the principle of simultaneous taxation.Analysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of the department's grievance regarding the Assessment Appellate Commissioner's (AAC) decision to cancel the assessment under section 144 for the assessment year 1966-67 in the status of Association of Persons (AOP). The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated the venture as an adventure in the nature of trade, resulting in taxation of the net surplus in the hands of the group of persons as an AOP.2. The matter was taken to the AAC, arguing that individual members had already been separately assessed on their shares, and hence, taxing the AOP again was unwarranted. The AAC relied on a Calcutta High Court decision, emphasizing that once income was taxed in the hands of members individually, there was no scope for subsequent taxation of the AOP for the same income.3. The Departmental Representative cited a Delhi High Court decision, suggesting that taxing the AOP after individual member assessments could be permissible by rectifying earlier assessments. The debate centered on the interpretation of section 4 of the IT Act, 1961, and its relevance compared to the provisions of the Indian IT Act, 1922. The assessee, however, relied on various High Court decisions, including the Calcutta High Court decision, to support their stance.4. The Tribunal considered the conflicting contentions and legal precedents. While acknowledging a few decisions favoring the Department's position, the majority of decisions, including the Calcutta High Court decision, supported the assessee's argument. It was emphasized that under both the old and new Acts, the ITO could not engage in simultaneous taxation of individual members and the association. Upholding the AAC's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, highlighting the principle against double taxation and the importance of the ITO's choice in assessments.