Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narayan Chandra Dey - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 273 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1977]108ITR515(Cal)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Section 256(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentNarayan Chandra Dey
Appellant AdvocateAjit Sen Gupta, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNone
Cases ReferredBiswa Rajan Sarvadhikari v. Income
Excerpt:
- .....building was erected on the said land. 2. the assessee has been assessed in the status of a hindu undivided family and in course of such assessment as it was contended on its behalf that the family was divided, the income-tax officer issued notices to the members and they submitted that there had been a complete partition of the joint family and the property had been partitioned by metes and bounds. in support of their above contention they produced a deed of partition dated march 21, 1960, before the income-tax officer who has,however, held that the said property was not partitioned by metes and bounds and accordingly he assessed the income of this property in the hands of the hindu undivided family. 3. the assessee preferred an appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner.....
Judgment:

S.C. Deb, J.

1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant previous year being 1367 B.S. One Gour Hari Seal died in or about 1943, leaving behind him his widow, Ratnamala Dassi and four sons, Naba Kumar, Tincowrie, Bhupen and Samar. In 1948, Ratnamala purchased a plot of land in her own name as stated in the statement of the case. After the said purchase, a five-storeyed building was erected on the said land.

2. The assessee has been assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family and in course of such assessment as it was contended on its behalf that the family was divided, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the members and they submitted that there had been a complete partition of the joint family and the property had been partitioned by metes and bounds. In support of their above contention they produced a deed of partition dated March 21, 1960, before the Income-tax Officer who has,however, held that the said property was not partitioned by metes and bounds and accordingly he assessed the income of this property in the hands of the Hindu undivided family.

3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and relied on the decision of this court in the case of Biswa Rajan Sarvadhikari v. Income-tax Officer : [1963]47ITR927(Cal) . It was contended on behalf of the assessee that in view of the said decision there could be no undivided Hindu family and the assessee could not be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has upheld the said contention of the assessee and has deleted the sum of Rs. 32,140 which represents the income from the said property.

4. Then, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has dismissed it by following the above decision of this court including another decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Gouri Shankar Bhar : [1968]68ITR345(Cal) and has thereafter referred the following question to this court:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having due regard to annexure 'A', the income from the property bearing No. 21 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme No. 45, could be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family ?'

5. The deed of partition is annexure 'A' to the statement of the case and it conclusively shows that this property has been partitioned between the members of the family. Therefore, the above question is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balai Chandra Paul : [1976]105ITR666(Cal) in which all the earlier decisions of this court have been discussed and followed.

6. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ajit Sen Gupta, the learned counsel for the revenue, that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous. We, accordingly, return our answer in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As no one has appeared for the assessee, we make no order as to costs.

Hazra, J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //