COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. P S SRIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is an HUF of which one P. R. Sriramulu Naidu was the Karta of the family and the family is comprised of P. R. Sriramulu Naidu and his son, P. R. Sridharan, as coparceners. THE assessee owned 170 grounds of land in Chennai which was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Karta of the joint family received the compensation for the lands acquired during the year ended 31st March, 1962, and deposited the same in the bank as under : Rs. 24-3-1962 1, 47, 307.56 30-5-1962 2, 89, 240.00 ------------- 4, 36, 547, 56 -------------

(2.) AFTER deducting a sum of Rs. 6, 000, the balance was equally divided between the two coparceners of the family. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2, 15, 273 was transferred to P. S. Sridharan as his share from the bank account of the family to Sridharan's bank account. Subsequently, an additional compensation was received in the year 1966 and a sum of Rs. 2, 24, 017.64 was deposited in the bank account of P. R. Sriramulu Naidu on 21st November, 1976, and a sum of Rs. 1, 06, 589.82 was transferred to P. S. Sridharan's bank account on 25th November, 1966.

(3.) THOUGH he upheld the submissions urged by the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not proper, he proceeded to decide the question on the merits of the case also and held that the view of the ITO under s. 171 of the Act an order should be passed for recognising the partial partition was not correct in law and, therefore, the ITO was not justified in making the reassessment including the interest income arising on the entire compensation in the hands of the joint family.Aggrieved by the orders, of the AAC, the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.