TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (8) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 3,57,025 was fixed and interest of Rs. 80,930 accrued on it. However, the joint family was never an assessee under the I.T. Act. The karta of the family was never being assessed. He was submitting only his individual returns. This compensation and interest were paid in the year 1954-55. But in 1967 the authorities concerned wanted to reopen the assessment and, for that purpose, gave a notice dated July 30, 1967, purporting to be one under s. 148 of the Act. It is very pertinent to note that this notice was issued in the individual name of the assessee. There was no reference at all to the joint Hindu family or his capacity as the karta of the family or that the notice was being issued in view of the interest which the family had gai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 148 is valid or not ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in cancelling the assessment made under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? " When the Tribunal declined to make the reference holding that no question of law arose, this application has been made by the revenue seeking reference of the same questions. It may be noted here that the I.T. Act of 1961 prescribes a period of eight years for reopening the assessment. However, it can do so after obtaining the permission of the Central Board of Direct Taxes within a period of 16 years. In this particular case it is stated that such permission of the CBDT had been secured. Therefore, it is undoubted that the authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he did not receive the interest in his individual capacity, he naturally filed the return on September 25, 1967, in his individual capacity. Therefore, it must be said that the notice (here the assessee whose assessment was sought to be reopened was the joint Hindu family and not the individual) could not be said to be in accordance with s. 148, in that it did not go to the real assessee. Anyway, the assessee filed his individual return in response to the notice on September 25, 1967. The ITO kept quiet for nearly three years eight months thereafter and wrote a letter on May 24, 1971, clarifying the position that the return should be submitted by the assessee as the karta of the joint family which had gained interest in the year 1954. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eopened, and the said clarification could be made later. But a close reading of the decision would show that the learned judges of the Calcutta High Court made a distinction between cases where the status of the assessee was important and where that status was not important. We may as well quote what the learned judges observed on this aspect of the matter at page 490. That passage is as follows : " If the status of the assessee was wrongly described, it can always be corrected by the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings, but that cannot affect the validity of the assessment proceedings. The position would of course be different where the status is so inextricably mixed up with the question as to who is the asse....