TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not the part owner of the building but the real owner of the building was the review-petitioner/appellant, Hindu undivided family. On such finding notice under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued and thereupon under section 143 of the Act, the assessment of the income of such building for the relevant years was assessed in the hands of the appellant/review-petitioner citing him as the owner of the building. 2. The appellant had contended disruption of the Hindu undivided family on the basis of the family arrangement recorded on April 21, 1989. Subsequent to the family arrangement, the appellant/review-petitioner, Bengali Singh, his wife and sons granted on lease a part of the building to Tata Iron and Steel Company unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the hearing of the S. L. A. remained pending for decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court. In the mean time, the appellant/review-petitioner was permitted to produce those documents, i.e., the municipal tax receipts before this court by way of review/clarification, It is in view of that order that the appellant/review-petitioner has filed the receipts before this court along with a review petition and seeks the finding of this court over the matter. 8. Since the hearing of the S. L. A. on the merits is pending before the hon'ble Supreme Court and the appellant/review-petitioner has approached this court under its review jurisdiction, this court has a limited jurisdiction to be exercised for the purpose of giving a finding over the municipal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that since that date, the aforesaid six persons were recorded in the municipal tax assessment record as owner of the holding and they have been paying municipal taxes separately as separate and individual owner of the holding. In view of such separate assessment and payment of municipal taxes separately by the above six persons, it was sought to be impressed on behalf of the review-petitioner that those six persons were separate owners of the holding and they were not constituents of any Hindu undivided family. 12. Such claim of the review-petitioner was opposed by the opposite party who stated that, no doubt, the entries in column 22 indicate subsequent change with effect from March 30, 1990, indicating separate municipal tax assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been assessed separately as owner for the purpose of realization of municipal taxes, but there is nothing to show as to in whose name or in what capacity the holdings stood prior to subsequent change taking effect from March 30, 1990, and as to what was the mode or manner of change, i.e., sale, gift or partition. 14. A very striking feature of the case is that the income of the building has been assessed in the hands of the appellant/review-petitioner Bengali Singh as an HUF, but any receipt in the name of Bengali Singh as individual owner of any part of the building has not been produced in order to show that in subsequent change effected from March 30, 1990, he got his separate share in the building as has been claimed by the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceners, that effected a separation in estate and its legal construction and effect could not be controlled or altered by the subsequent conduct of the parties. 17. The case of Girija Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, AIR 1967 SC 1124, was also cited wherein it was held by the apex court that once the shares are defined whether by agreement between the parties or otherwise, partition is complete. The parties may thereafter choose to divide the property by metes and bounds or may continue to live together and enjoy the property in common as before. If they live together the mode of enjoyment alone remains joint but not the tenure of the property. 18. Further, the case of Puttrangamma v. M. S. Ranganna, AIR 1968 SC 1018, was also ci....