AJIT KUMAR SUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are six applications by a common petitioner for quashing of the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, in six applications of the petitioner under Section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") registered as Income-tax Revisions Nos. 66 to 71 of 1974-75. The relevant assessment years are 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee, an individual, is a Hindu, governed by the Dayabhaga school of law. He has interest in certain immovable properties located at Cuttack and Angul and in his returns for these years, he disclosed one-third share of the income from these properties and the disclosed income from these sources was included in the respective assessments. The assessee preferred appeals against each of the assessments but had not raised a ground challenging the inclusion of the one-third share income of rent from the aforesaid property in his assessments for these years and the appellate authority did not deal with the question also. Against the consolidated decision of the appellate authority, the petitioner carried six revisions as already noted to the Commissioner of Income-tax and claimed that the inclusion of the one-third share income from the said property in the respective assessments of the petitioner as an individual was unjustified and illegal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Hindu joint family of which the petitioner is a member is the owner of the properties in question and income earned from the properties belonged to the Hindu undivided family which under the income-tax law was a unit for assessment. There was no provision for adding the income of the Hindu undivided family in the hands of an individual constituting a family. Before the Commissioner, the following genealogy was placed.

(3.) A number of other authorities had been cited before us, but on the analysis we have presented above, we are satisfied that the matter should be concluded against the assessee-petitioner without reference to those other authorities. Each of the writ applications accordingly fails and is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.