THAMMAIAH M R Vs. AGRICULTURAL ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions arise out of the reassessment proceedings under s. 36 of the Karnataka Agricultural I.T. Act, 1957 (called shortly the "Act").

(2.) FOR the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, the petitioner returned the income as that of a HUF, but he has included only his share income from the family properties. After hearing the petitioner's representative, the assessing authority recorded a best judgment assessment. The assess did not put forward the plea that there was a partition in his family even though there was one. Subsequently, the assessing authority got the information that the amounts received from the Coffee Board in the names of the assessee's sons from the family properties were not included in the taxable income of the HUF. He issue a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why there should not be a reassessment under s. 36 of the Act in respect of the income concealed by the assessee. There was no reply to that notice and so the assessing authority confirmed the proposal.

(3.) IN view of these findings recorded by the authorities below, we must now proceed on the premise that there was no claim of partition in the original assessment proceedings. The assessee no doubt made a faint reference to the partition in his letter date November 25, 1978, but in that letter he sought an adjournment of the case. The authorities have rightly stated that the reference to the partition in that letter could not be construed as a claim of partition particularly when in the returns filed subsequently, the stand taken by the assessee was that he should be assessed in the status a of a HUF.