TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....framed by the Assessing Officer under section 16(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act') on the ground that the initiation of proceedings under section 17 of the Act was invalid. Since the fact position in all the years stand on identical footing, we hereinafter detail the facts in relation to the assessment year 1993-94. The assessee before us is an HUF. For the assessment year 1993-94 the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 17(1) of the Act on the ground that certain wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In response the assessee filed a return of wealth on 13th March, 2002 in the status of an 'individual'. The Assessing Officer made an assessment in the status of the HUF determining the chargeable wealth at Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 5 to point out that in fact no status has been mentioned therein but the said notice is addressed to the right person, i.e., Shri Shingara Singh. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that in the return originally filed in response to notice under section 17 on 13-3-2002, the assessee did not declare any status and even in the revised return filed on 10-3-2003, the status column was left blank. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the variation in the notice issued and the reasons recorded were in the knowledge of the assessee even on 5-12-2002 (as stated in the communication date of such date), copy of which was placed on record and therefore the assessee still chose to file a revised return on 10-3-2003 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31-5-2001 as being issued in the status of 'individual'. The said notice having culminated in an assessment in which status of HUF renders the impugned assessment as devoid of jurisdiction. In support, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Bhagwan Devi Saraogi v. ITO [1979] 118 ITR 906 (Cal.), CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC), Ravinder Narain v. ITO [1974] 96 ITR 612 (Delhi). 5. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material placed on record to which our attention has been drawn during the course of hearing and proceed to dispose of the issue in the following lines. The crux of the issue relates to the validity of the assumption of jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a notice for making assessment under the Act is wrongly issued to the assessee in the status of an 'individual' and not in the correct status of 'HUF', the said notice is illegal and all proceedings taken under that notice are bereft of jurisdiction and are ultra vires. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gokul Chand v. ITO [1995] 211 ITR 738 (All.). We may also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Mysore High Court in the case of Lakshmibai v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 804 (Mys.) in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 went to the extent of saying that if the notice for reassessment does not specify the correct assessm....