CHIRANJI LAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner is a Hindu undivided family, whose karta is one Chiranji Lal. Chiranji Lal derived income from his share in a business. The Hindu undivided family owned some ancestral immoveable property. For the assessment year 1946-47 and 1947-48 separate returns were filed by Chiranji Lal in respect of the income from property. In those returns Chiranji Lal mentioned that the status was joint with sons. He did not indicate in the return that he was the karta of the family. For the assessment year 1948-49 two returns were filed, one in the status of an individual and the other in the status of coowners with one-fifth share each in the name of Chiranji Lal, Rameshwar Prasad, Om Prakash, Chandra Prakash and Srimati Sunhery Devi. The return was signed by the several persons who described themselves as co-owners. It was not mentioned that they constituted a Hindu undivided family and that the return was filed by the family.

(2.) THE Income-tax Officer made an assessment order against Chiranji Lal for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49, in his status as an individual in respect of the income derived by him from his share in the partnership business. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer issued notices under section 34 in respect of the three assessment years and included the income from property also in those assessments. THE assessment orders declared the status to be that of an individual. Chiranji Lal appealed against the assessments contending that the income from the property could not be clubbed together with his income from the share in the business. THE appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. THE Appellate Tribunal held that the income from the share in the business belonged to the Hindu undivided family and was not the individual income of Chiranji Lal. It pointed out that the returns, on which the assessments in question were made, were filed by the Hindu undivided family and that the Income-tax Officer intended to assess the Hindu undivided family, and it referred to the observation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the description of the status of the assessee as an individual in the assessment orders was an oversight. THE Appellate Tribunal pointed out further that it was for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, when he found that the assessments in the status of an individual were made by an oversight, to have corrected the mistake and rectified the description at the top of the assessment orders from individual to Hindu undivided family. THE Appellate Tribunal now directed that to be done. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal a reference was brought to this court. Three questions were referred

(3.) THE petition fails and is dismissed with costs.