TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (4) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Asst. Amount of Amount of No. year relief u/s 80C tax rebate now withdrawn &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 1,100 1313/81 P.K. Inbarajan -do- 1977-78 1,954 1,073 1314/81 P.K. Inbarajan -do- 1977-78 4,050 2,228 1315/81 P.K. Inbarajan -do- 1978-79 4,000 1,840 1316/81 P.K. Inbarajan (Smaller HUF) 1978-79 1,954 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hemes. When these kartas wanted to open separate account for a different HUF with the same kartas and the bank had some misgivings about opening two accounts in the same name, they sought the intervention of the ITO (also in charge of Public Relations) who advised the bank to open such accounts. Even at that stage, the assessees were not informed of the correct legal position Different ITOs at different times allowed such relief without question. Years later, the assessments were sought to be rectified under section 154 of the Act and notices were issued on the assessees proposing to withdraw the relief. The assessees took as many as seven objections. The assessees claimed that the HUFs through its kartas could make contributions on behalf of its members and could be entitled to the same benefits as are available to its members. It was pointed out that the handouts did not indicate the non-availability of this relief to families. It was, therefore, sought to be suggested that either relief is available to HUFs or, at least, the right of HUFs to this relief is so debatable as to take it out of the scope of action under section 154. The action of successive ITOs in allowing the relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Dr. V.K. Ramachandran [1981] 128 ITR 727 and the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Indian Institute of Public Opinion Co. (P.) Ltd. [1982] 134 ITR 23 for his proposition that the mistake should be a glaring one and not ascertainable after long arguments. He also repeated the other arguments mentioned before the authorities below. 4. The learned departmental representative claimed that there is much extraneous and irrelevant arguments raised on behalf of the assessee. The single question is whether there is a mistake apparent from the records. Relief under section 80C is not available to a HUF. A plain reading of the section would make that clear. It is not disputed that the status in the case of each assessee is that of the HUF. These facts are enough to justify action under section 154. Any other fact is irrelevant. While he sympathised with the assessees for their mistakes in assuming wrongly that Hindu families have rights no different from those of the individuals in respect of relief under section 80C, he pointed out that the reliefs under section 80C are with reference to status. Companies, for example, do not get simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to an HUF for contribution made to a notified Public Provident Fund. Even if we assume that the payment is made by the HUF on behalf of the individual members, though there is no factual basis for such assumption, only the individual concerned will be eligible for relief and not an HUF. Hence, in any view of the matter there is no scope whatever for allowance of relief under section 80C in respect of contribution to Public Provident Fund in the case of an assessee who is an HUF. There cannot be two opinions on this issue. The matter is not debatable at all. The fact that the ITOs themselves had a different understanding or that the mistake was repeated by many on different occasions does not make the mistake any the less a mistake. The fact that deposits are accepted by such notified funds does not mean that relief under section 80C is promised on them. There are many persons who may not have any taxable income but still invest in them for their own reasons. Tax benefit is not the sole purpose of such investments. The benefits spelt out for individuals and families are distinct and separate. For example, the premium paid for a contract of a deferred annuity will be available for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation between individual and HUF cannot obviously be gone into by this Tribunal which is the creature of the very law that is sought to be challenged. As regards charges regarding alleged contributory negligence and claims based upon the concept of promissory estoppel, these are indeed very vague. Neither the handouts nor the actions of the ITOs had held out a promise to the assessee that they will be eligible for relief under section 80C, though not authorised by the statute. Their failure to advise the assessee as to the limited scope of relief in respect of contributions to notified Public Provident Fund cannot be a foundation for resisting the claim of the revenue to correct a mistake apparent from the records. The authorities, no doubt, helped the assessee to open the accounts and they mistakenly allowed the relief and probably shared the same wrong misconception of law, a misconception which should have got cleared by a most cursory look at the statute. These actions may make them parties to the mistake. In fact they were parties who had mistakenly accepted the assessee's claim. Their mistakes, even if negligent, were as bona fide as the mistakes of the assessees in claiming ....