BENGALI SINGH (HUF) THROUGH BENGALI SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE rental income of a large building "Sumitra Sadan" was being shared by eight persons and each of them used to file separate Income Tax Returns showing himself as part owner of the building in relation to his share in such rental income. One of such eight owners, Sumitra Devi filed such returns for the Assessment Year 1991 -92 to 1997 -98 which were accepted. Subsequent thereto for the Assessment Year 1998 -99, on scrutiny of return of Sumitra Devi, it was found that she was not the part owner of the building but the real owner of the building was the review - petitioner/appellant, Hindu Undivided Family. On such finding notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and thereupon under Section 143 of the Act, the assessment of the income of such building for the relevant years was assessed in the hands of the appellant/review -petitioner citing him as the owner" of the building.

(2.) THE appellant had contended disruption of Hindu United Family on the basis of the family arrangement recorded on 21st April 1989. Subsequent to the family arrangement, the 18/4/2014 Page 231 Equivalent Citation:2009 -PLJR -3 -451 appellant/review -petitioner Bengali Singh, his wife and sons granted on lease a part of the building to Tata Iron & Steel Company under lease dated 28thDecember 1989. In the lease, Sri Singh described himself as Karta of the joint Hindu Family comprising of himself, his wife and major sons. In the deed, his minor sons had also been represented by Sri Singh. Those sons, who according to the family arrangement, had not obtained any share in the building or the land upon which the building stood had also joined the lease deed.

(3.) ON those grounds, the findings which was ultimately upheld by this Court vide order dated 16th April 2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 497 of 2008 and M.A. No. 76 of 2008 was that any partition pursuant to family arrangement of April 1989 did not take effect and that, therefore, the income was rightly assessed in the hands of the Hindu Undivided Family, the appellant/review -petitioner.