BHAGAT SINGH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
F.C. Rustagi, Judicial Member -
(1.) THE assessee in this appeal has come forward with three contentions, the first being in respect of jurisdiction raised in ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the second regarding inclusion of dividend income, interest from banks and annuity refund in the hands of the assessee as individual disputed in ground Nos. 4 and 5 and the third contention being in respect of charging of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') both regarding appealability against charging of interest. THE assessment year involved is 1977-78 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1977.
(2.) First of all, for the sake of convenience, we take up grounds pertaining to challenge to jurisdiction raised by the assessee. The facts in regard to this in brief are that the jurisdiction over the case of Shri Bhagat Singh, individual, the present appellant, vested with the ITO, central circle V, Ludhiana who had issued a notice under Section 139(2) dated 4-5-1977 to Shri Bhagat Singh which was served on him on 28-5-1977. However, the assessee on 30-9-1977 had filed his return with another ITO being the ITO, Distt. 11(4), who completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 20-11-1977. Shri Bhagat Singh filed another return in the status of HUF with the ITO, centeral circle VI, who forwarded the same to the ITO, Distt. I(iii), who held territorial jurisdiction over the assessee-HUF. The assessee as individual filed a return with the ITO central circle VI, on 25-3-1980 and marked the same as duplicate. The ITO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) in which he made the following additions-
The assessee had not offered the above three figures as it was stated by him that a partial partition had taken place in the family on 1-4-1971 in respect of share capital invested in the firm of Gurmukh Singh & Sons. Though the assessee in respect of the share income from the said firm was assessed as an individual, but as the assessee was blessed with a daughter after partial partition, his status reverted back to that of HUF in respect of funds received on partial partition on 1-4-1971. The ITO rejected this contention and observing that since his wife was already separated from the HUF, subsequent birth of a daughter to him would not get back to him the status of HUF as no HUF qua this property at the time of her birth was in existence. The ITO, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee qua these incomes and holding that the same did not belong to the HUF, included the same in the hands of the assessee as individual. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO also charged interest under Sections 215 and 139(8).
(3.) THE assessee, aggrieved by the order of the ITO, challenged the jurisdiction before the AAC on one hand and inclusion of dividend, interest and annuity refund incomes in the hands of the assessee on the other hand as also charging of interest under Sections 215 and 139(8). THE assessee failed in respect of his contentions pertaining to jurisdiction and challenged regarding the inclusion of dividend income from bank and annuity refund and in respect of charging of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the same was not appealable as there did not lie any appeal against the charging of interest under Sections 215 and 139(8). It is these actions of the Commissioner (Appeals) which are challenged before us by the assessee.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.