1981 (1) TMI 121 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal affirms individual status over Hindu Undivided Family ( )

RAM SARAN PEHALWAN. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Income Tax Officer's determination that the assessee's status was that of an individual rather than a Hindu Undivided ... - Issues:1. Determination of assessee's status as HUF or individual for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77.Comprehensive Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-B involved two appeals by the assessee concerning the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee, working as a Mate in M.E.S., Kanpur, initially filed returns declaring his status as HUF for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, which were accepted without any probe under the spot Assessment Scheme. However, for the subsequent assessment years, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) questioned the HUF status and required the assessee to prove it. The ITO found discrepancies in the family members' names disclosed by the assessee and concluded that the property passed under the Hindu Succession Act, thereby determining the assessee's status as an individual rather than HUF.The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) affirmed the individual status, stating that the property devolved on the assessee from his mother was self-acquired and not ancestral. The AAC also noted that previous assessments were made without proper investigation, supporting the individual status determination. The assessee contended that the normal status of a Hindu is HUF, and even if the Succession Act applied, the business should belong to all heirs. The assessee argued that the business was carried on by the mother as a joint family business.Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee's status depended on previous declarations where HUF status was accepted. The Tribunal noted that the business passed from the father to the mother and then to the assessee individually. As the business was not proven to be ancestral, it was considered the individual property of the assessee. Referring to the decision of the Allahabad High Court, the Tribunal upheld the individual status determination, stating that the assessee failed to establish himself as the Karta of an HUF regarding the money lending business.The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, as no submissions were made regarding other grounds of appeal. The decision was based on the failure to prove the business as ancestral and the individual nature of the property passed down to the assessee, in line with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the previous court decision.