1991 (5) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for is as under : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment order made by the Wealth-tax Officer on March 17, 1980, was barred by time limit and, consequently, in quashing the assessment ?" We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and the assessee. The brief facts giving rise to these reference applications are that, until the year 1963-64, the assessee was being assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The returns for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 were filed in response to the notices issued under section 14(2) of the Act. These returns were filed without mentioning the status. Returns for 11 years were filed in the status of a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ily and completed the assessments after including the immovable properties which were sub-divided amongst the four members of the family but, instead of doing so, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments on the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family as against individual shown by him in the returns. It was held that this indicates that the Wealth-tax Officer has technically accepted that there had been a partition of immovable properties in the family on May 31, 1963. While assessing a person in a status different from the one for which he had filed returns, he deserved a notice, not only under the provisions of the Act but also as a rule of natural justice. Reliance was placed on CWT v. Ridhkaran [1972] 84 ITR 705 (Raj)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to a third member and he decided them in favour of the assessee ; hence the appeals were allowed holding that the assessments were not made within the time limit. The application for making reference was rejected. The Tribunal refused to make reference, and hence this application. In the light of the facts narrated above, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava [1988] 170 ITR 556 (MP), wherein it has been held that the assessee had a right to Me a subsequent return under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, after he has filed a voluntary return under this section, and the limitation for the assessment would start from the date of the subsequent return. In Nanjappa Textiles v. CIT [1985] 153 IT....