1987 (10) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 31,300 added by the ITO being the difference between the value of construction of building as shown by the assessee and estimated by the departmental valuer." 2. In this case, the return of income was filed on 26th July, 1978 declaring an income of Rs. 9,810. The accounting year shown in the assessment order is S.Y. 2037 and the status adopted for the purpose of assessment is AOP as declare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etermined, one assessee is not liable for tax. Only members are liable for tax. Share of the members are as under: 1. Mrs. Laxmiben Popatlal Mehta 1/3 15,703 2. Mrs. Valuben Shantilal Mehta 1/3 15,703 3. Mrs. Kanchanben Ramniklal 1/3 15,704     47,110 Bhuj-Kutch Dt. 30th March, 1984 Sd/-(S.M. Dube) ITO, Wd/ A, Bhuj. Issue penalty notice for co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der passed by the AAC besides placing before us submissions in writing as also Xerox copy of one bill in respect of the construction material, which was the subject matter of controversy. 5. We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and have also considered the submissions. We fail to understand how an assessment is made on the basis of a return of income erroneously filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded. Such AOP is not an AOP in law. There is no question of any representative assessment. Therefore, the return of income even if filed should have been treated as non-est and should not have been acted upon. The assessment made on the basis of such return is null and void ab initio. Therefore, no addition can be sustained on the basis of so-called assessment as is done in this case. Therefore, i....