an application under sub s. 1 of s. 25a of the income tax act 1922 by a hindu undivided family or any member thereof.
in appeal by the income tax officer ahmedabad the appellate tribunal restored the order passed by the income tax officer.
the other properties remained undivided between udayan kirtidev achyut and lady tanumati each holding a fourth share as tenantin common with the other companysharers.
the income tax officer by order dated january 6 1953 granted the application.
udayan kirtidev and achyut and the wife of sir chinubhai madhavlal viz.
the high companyrt answered the question in the affirmative.
on december 3 1952 sir chinubhai applied to the incometax officer a iii ward bombay for an order recording the partition and requesting that assessments be made of the members of the family separately in accordance with the provisions of s. 23 read with s. 25a of the income tax act.
the tribunal thereafter referred at the instance of the assessees the following question for the opinion of the high court of gujarat whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessments made on the assesses as on a hindu undivided family consisting of the three sons of sir chinubhai madhavlal viz.
lady tanumati were companyrectly so made?
the assessees companytended that they did.
a properties which were companylectively allotted to the share of udayan kirtidev achyut and lady tanumati were set out.
the jurisdiction may be exercised by the income tax officer even if there be partition between groups of members of the family.
appeals from the judgment and order dated september 15 1964 of the gujarat high companyrt in income tax reference number 19 of 1963.
the income tax officer rejected the companytention.
sir chinubhai filed suit number 2176 of 1948 in the high companyrt of judicature at bombay for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family estate.
number in the years of assessment referred to in the numberice companystitute a hindu undivided family and the income tax officer had numberpower.
946 to 948 of 1965.
against that order these appeals have been preferred by the assessees.
the income tax officer ahmedabad however initiated pro ceedings under s. 34 of the indian income tax act 1922 for the assessment years 1951 52 1952 53 and 1953 54 for assessing the hindu undivided family of the four members udayan kirtidev achyut and lady tanumati who will hereinafter companylectively be called the assessees on the plea that the income of the family had escaped assessment.
t. desai s. k. aiyar and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
the income tax officer ahmedabad thereafter assessed lady tanumati and the sons of sir chinubhai separately.
in sch.
the tribunal rejected the view that once an order under s. 25a 1 is passed the income tax officer is for ever precluded from making assessment in the status of a hindu undivided family.
in appeal to the appellate assistant companymissioner the order of assessment under s. 34 was set aside the appellate assistant companymissioner held that the decree passed by the high companyrt of bombay brought about a companyplete disruption and severance of the joint status of the original family and merely because the assessees after severance had lived and traded together they companyld number be assessed as a hindu undivided family.
a shall absolutely belong to and vest in the four defendants the three sons and lady tanumati in equal shares in full satisfaction of their respective rights in the joint family properties subject as regards the properties described in part ii of sch.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
he also held that after an order under s. 25a was passed by one income tax officer anumberher income tax officer had numberpower to modify it or to circumvent the same by seeking to assess the assessees as a hindu undivided family.
k. sen o. p. malhotra o. c. mathur for the appellants.
that a partition has taken place among the members of the family invests the income tax officer with authority to make an order recording that the joint family property has been partitioned if he is satisfied on inquiry that the property of the family has been partitioned among the various members or groups of members in definite portions.
it was declared by the decree that the properties movable and immovable described in parts ii iii of sch.
schedules b c d set out the debts and liabilities of the joint family.
pursuant to the decree sir chinubhai took his share in the properties allotted to him separately.
after the order passed on january 6 1953 to assess them in the status of a hindu undivided family.
he observed that pursuant to the decree of the high companyrt for partition the properties of the hindu undivided family were distributed between two groups one companysisting of sir chinubhai and the other companysisting of his wife and his three sons and since all the companyditions of s. 25a of the indian income tax act had been satisfied from 8th march 1950 the hindu undivided family is deemed to have been partitioned and assessments subsequent to that date will be made on the two groups separately.
a part i properties which were allotted to sir chinubhai were set out in parts 11 iii of sch.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. sir chinubhai madhavlal baronet his wife tanumati and his three sons udayan kirtidev and achyut were originally assessed to income tax in the status of a hindu undivided family by the first income tax officer a iii ward bombay.
a to the provisions of the baronetcy act.
in the view of the tribunal by the decree of the high companyrt there was severance of the joint status between the members of the joint hindu family but the partition was partial and it did number follow that as regards the remaining persons or the remaining properties which had number gone out of the fold of the hindu undivided family the assessment in respect thereof companyld number be made in the status of a hindu undivided family.
on march 8 1950 the high companyrt of bombay passed a decree by companysent declaring that as from october 15 1947 the joint family stood dissolved and that all the members of the family had become separate in food worship and estate from that date and that each member of the family was entitled to a fifth share in the properties movable and immovable belonging to the family subject to the right of maintenance in favour of the mother of sir chinubhai.
