TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (8) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31, 1980. He had shown an income of Rs. 19,221. A notice under section 17(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, and another notice was also issued. Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the lands belong to Thiruvalargal A. M. S. Hameed Ibrahim, A. M. S. Ahamed Ibrahim and A. M. S. Lebbai Sahib, and the assessment has to be finalised under the status of "tenants-in-common". According to the assessee, after the demise of their father, there was no partition of properties among his brothers and they are under common management for the purpose of earning income. The Assessing Officer states that the representative of the assessee also agreed to assign the status as "association of persons". From the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey are enjoying the properties as tenants-in-common, as per section 3(3) of the Act, they should be assessed separately in their individual capacity as co-owners and they cannot be assessed in the status of "association of persons". According to learned counsel, whatever may be the status in the earlier years, since each assessment year is a separate entity, in this assessment year the request made by the assessee should be complied with. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessment should be made in their individual capacity. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal, submitted that it is no doubt true that under the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a co-owner, he should be assessed separately and not in the status of "association of persons" as per the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act. If the assessee came forward with this claim soon after the demise of their father or after the purchase of the property, then as per the provisions contained in section 3(3) of the Act, they would be treated as "tenants-in-common" and the assessment would have been made on each of them as co-owners individually. But, unfortunately, in the present case, in the earlier years up to 1978-79, the assessee was assessed in the status of "association of persons". Now, the Department contended that inasmuch as in the earlier years they were assessed in the status of "association of persons", it must be for....