High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Tirlochan Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And … on 20 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Tirlochan Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And … on 20 January, 2009
ITA NO.30 OF 2006                    [1]


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                           AT CHANDIGARH

                                      ITA NO.30 OF 2006
                                      Date of decision: 20.01.2009

M/s Tirlochan Singh                               .......Appellant

                   versus

Commissioner of Income Tax and another ......Respondents

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

Present:     Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate
             for the respondents.

J.S.Khehar, J.

A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

1961(herein after referred to as the “Act”) was issued to the

appellant on 14.03.2002, the same came to be served on the

appallent on 21.03.2002. The claim of the Assessing Officer was

that the appellant was assessable as a Hindu Undivided Family.

On the contrary, the claim of the appellant-assessee was that a

partial partition had taken place on 30.04.1978 whereby

immovable as well as movable assests of the Hindu Undivided

Family were divided by metes and bounds between the co-

parceners, and as such, there was no question of assessing the

appellant as a Hindu Undivided Family.

After 30.04.1978, i.e. after the partial partition had

taken place amongst the members of the Hindu Undivided

Family, the property in question was sold, and the proceeds
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [2]

thereof were invested as Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of

the appellant-assessee i.e. in the capacity of the appellant as a

as a Hindy Undivided Family. The Fixed Deposit Receipts

eventually matured on 8.09.1996, whereafter, monetary shares

were allegedly apportioned amongst the members of the

appellant-assessee i.e. the members of the Hindu Undivided

Family. The facts narrated herein are undisputed and are in fact

acknowledged by the learned counsel for the rival parties.

The question which arises for consideration at the

hands of this Court, while disposing of the present appeal relates

to the Assessment Year 1997-1998. The appellant-assessee as a

Hindy Undivided Family maintains that no assessment can be

made for the Assessment Year in question. It is the submission

of the learned counsel for the appellant that the original property

in the hands of the Hindu Undivided Family, after partial partition

thereof on 30.04.1978 could not be assessed to tax under

Section 171 of the Act. It is the alternative contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant, that even if the partial

partition referred to above is not taken into consideration, that

would not effect assessment in the hands of the appellant as a

Hindu Undivided Family. In this behalf it is pointed out that the

appellant as a Hindu Undivided Family could have been subjected

to tax only if it had earlier been assessed to tax as a Hindu

Undivided Family. Accordingly, the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant, that since the appellant-assessee had

never hitherto before(i.e., prior to the Assessment Year 1997-98)
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [3]

ever been assessed as a Hindu Undivided Family, there was no

question of the appellant-assessee being assessed as a Hindu

Undivided Family.

In response to a query posed by the Court, learned

counsel for the appellant states that the propertry in the hands of

the Hindu Undivided Family, besides the property which was

subjected to partial partition, is not subject matter of

consideration in this appeal. The veracity of the instant answer

at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee is

not subject matter of contest at the hands of the learned counsel

for the respondents.

It is in the factual background noticed hereinabove

that we must decide the claim raised by the appellant in this case

in terms of the mandate of Section 171 of the Act. Section 171 of

the Act is being extracted hereunder:

Section 171(1) A Hindu family hitherto assessed as

undivided shall be deemed for the purposes of this

Act to continue to be a Hindu undivided family,

except where and in so far as a finding of partition

has been given under this section in respect of the

Hindu undivided family.

(2) Where, at the time of making an assessment

under section 143 or section 144, it is claimed by or

on behalf of any member of a Hindu family assessed

as undivided that a partition, whether total or partial,

has taken place among the members of such family,
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [4]

the [Assessing] Officer shall make an inquiry

thereinto after giving notice of the inquiry to all the

members of the family.

(3) On the completition of the inquiry, the

[Assessing] Officer shall record a finding as to

whether there has been a total or partial partititon of

the joint family property, and, if there has been such

a partition, the date on whic h it has taken place.

(4) Where a finding of total or partial partitition has

been recorded by the [Assessing] Officer under this

section, and the partition took place during the

previous year,-

(a) the total income of the joint family in

respect of the period up to the date of

partition shall be assessed as if no partition

had taken place; and

(b) each member or group of members shall,

in addition to any tax for which he or it may

be separately liable and notwithstanding

anything contained in clause (2) of section 10,

be jointly and severally liable for the tax on

the income so assessed.

(5) Where a finding of total or partial partition has

been recorded by the[Assessing] Officer under this

section, and the partition took place after the expiry

of the previous year, the total income of the previous
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [5]

year of the joint family shall be assessed as if no

partition had taken place; and the provisions of clause

(b) of sub-section(4) shall, so far as may be, apply to

the case.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

section, if the[Assessing] Officer finds after completion

of the assessment of a Hindu undivided family that the

family has already effected a partition, whether total

or partial, the[Assessing] Officer shall proceed to

recover the tax from every person who was a member

of the family before the partition, and every such

person shall be jointly and severally liable for the tax

on the income so assessed.

(7) For the purposes of this section, the several

liability of any member or group of members

thereunder shall be computed according to the portion

of the joint family property allotted to him or it at the

partition, whether total or partial.

(8) The provisions of this section shall, so far as may

be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of any

penalty, interest, fine or other sum in respect of any

period up to date of the partition, whether total or

partial, of a Hindu undivided family as they apply in

relation to the levy and collection of tax in respect of

any such period.


         [(9) Notwithstanding         anything    contained    in   the
 ITA NO.30 OF 2006             [6]


foregoing provisions of the section, where a partial

partition has taken place after the 31st day of

December, 1978, among the members of a Hindu

undivided family hitherto assessed as undivided,-

(a) no claim that such partial partition has

taken place shall be inquired into under sub-

section(2) and no finding shall be recorded

under sub-section(3) that such partial partition

had taken place and any finding recorded under

sub-section(3) to that effect whether before or

after the 18th day of June, 1980, being the date

of introduction of the Finance(No.2) Bill, 1980,

shall be null and void.

(b) such family shall continue to be liable to

be assessed under this Act as if no such partial

partition had taken place.

(c) each member or group of members of

such family immediately before such partial

partition and the family shall be jointly and

severally liable for any tax, penalty, interest,

fine or other sum payable under this Act by the

family in respect of any period, whether before

or after such partial partition.

(d) the several liability of any member or

group of members aforesaid shall be computed

according to the portion of the joint family
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [7]

property alloted to him or it at such partial

partition,

and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.]

Explanation-In this section,-

     (a)    "partition" means--

                  (i)    where the property admits of a physical

division, a physical division of the property, but a

physical division of the income without a physical

division of the property producing the income

shall not be deemed to be a partition; or

(ii) where the property does not admit of a

physical division, then such division as the

property admits of, but a mere severance of

status shall not be deemed to be a partition;

(b) “partial partition” means a partition which is a partial

as regards the persons constituting the Hindu undivided

family, or the properties belonging to the Hindu undivided

family, or both.

Relying on clause(1) of Section 171 of the Act, it is

contended on behalf of the appellant-assessee that the

assessment permissible under Section 171 of the Act envisaged

certain pre-requisites. Firstly, the aforesaid assessment must be

in respect of property of a Hindu Family. Secondly, the

assessment must be in respect of such a Hindu Undivided Family

which has hitherto been assessed as a Hindu Undivided Family.

Although, the facts in this case depict that at some point in time
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [8]

the appellant-assessee was a Hindu Undivided Family but there is

no dispute whatsoever, that the appellant-assessee has not been

assessed as a Hindu Undivided Family prior to the Assessment

Year 1997-98. In view of the fact, that the conditions pre-

requisite for the application of Section 171 of the Act are not

fulfilled by the appellant-assessee. In the present case, it is the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was

not open to the Assessing Officer to assess the appellant-

assessee as a Hindu Undivided Family, and as such the

assessment rendered by the Income Tax Officer vide order dated

6.03.2003 is liable to be set aside.

We have carefully examined the ingredients of Section

171(1) of the Act. We have no hesitation in accepting the plea

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant so as to

conclude, that Section 171 of the Act caters to a situation where

a Hindu Undivided Family has been partitioned. We are also

satisfied that Section 171 of the Act deals with assessment after

the division of the Hindu Undivided Family. In our considered

view before Section 171 of the Act can be invoked, so as to

assess the property of the Hindu Undivided Family even after

partition, as a Hindu Undivided Family, it should have been

assesed as a Hindy Undivided Family before such partition. A

similar conclusion was also expressed by the Gujarat High Court,

as well as, by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In this behalf

reference may be made to the decision rendered by the Gujarat

High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kantilal Ambalal
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [9]

(HUF),(1991)192 ITR 376 wherein the Court observed as under:-

“The argument of the Revenue proceeds on
the assumption that section 171 of the Act applies to
the facts of the present case. Section 171 of the Act
has no application to a case of a Hindu family which
has never been assessed before as a joint family i.e.,
as a unit of assessment. In other words, this section
has application to a Hindu family which has been
assessed before as a joint family and if the Hindu
undivided family has never been assessed to tax, this
section has no application. The Hindu undivided family
of Kantilal Ambalal, admittedly, was never assessed to
income-tax in the past. Therefore, section 171 of the
Act has no application at all to the facts of the instant
case. A similar view has been taken by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. P.Durgamma[1987]
166 ITR 776.”

It would be pertinent to mention that after the

passing of the assessment order dated 6.03.2003 the appellant

preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) vide his

order dated 27.06.2003 accepted the appeal by holding that the

appellant could not have been assessed as a Hindu Undivided

Family, under Section 171 of the Act. The aforesaid finding

rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) dated

27.06.2003, was assailed by the Revenue before the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal agreed

that the Revenue vide order dated 10.06.2005. In other words,

the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that

the property in question was liable to be assessed in the hands of

the appellant as a Hindu Undivided Family under Section 171(9)

of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that sun-section(9) of

Section 171 of the Act is in the nature of an exception to sub-

ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [10]

Section(1) of Section 171 of the Act(relied) upon by the

appellant. The order passed by the Income Tax Appellant

Tribunal dated 10.06.2005 has also been challenged at the hands

of the appellant by asserting that the same is inapplicable in this

case.

During the course of hearing of the instant appeal,

learned counsel for the respondent has solely relied on sub-

section(9) of Section 171 of the Act to defeat the claim of the

appellant. It is the vehement contention of the counsel for the

respondent that partition of the Hindu Undivided Family in the

present case must be deemed to have taken place on 8.09.1996,

and that, the same cannot be deemed to have taken place prior

thereto, because after the sale of the property of Hindu

Undivided Family the sale proceeds came to be deposited in as

Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the Hindu Undivided

Family. It is submitted that on maturity of the Fixed Deposit

Receipts on 8.09.1996, the proceeds thereof were divided

amongst the members of the Hindu Unidivided Family. It is

therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the

respondents that it is not open to the appellant to claim partial

partition of the property in question on 30.04.1978. Learned

counsel for the respondent further submitted, that the partition

of the Hindu Undivided Family in respect of the assessment which

is a subject matter of consideration in the instant appeal, can be

deemed to have taken place after 8.09.1996 i.e., after the

maturity of the Fixed Deposit Receipts, and the distribution
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [11]

thereof in the hands of the co-parceners.

Under the mandate of sub-section(9) of Section 171 of

the Act(extracted above) a partial partition which has taken place

after 31.12.1978 is not recognised, and as such, the partial

partition alleged to have taken place on 8.09.1996 cannot be

recognised for purpose of taxing the appellant-assessee.

We have considered the submission advanced by the

learned counsel for the respondent based on sub-section(9) of

Section 171 of the Act. There can be no doubt that sub-section

(9) of Section 171 of the Act, is an exception to sub-Section(1) of

Section 171 of the Act, as such, if the Revenue can establish the

applicability of sub-section(9) of Section 171 of the Act, that

would completely negate the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant. We shall therefore, in the first instance,

determine the applicability of sub-section(9) of Section 171 of

the Act, to the facts and ciucumstances of the present case. We

are satisfied that for the applicability of sub-section(9) of the

Section 171 of the Act, two pre-requisites are essential. Firstly,

the partial partition should have taken place after 31.12.19978.

And secondly, such partial partition must have taken place in a

Hindu Undivided Family which hitherto before was assessed as a

Hindu Undivided Family. It is not a matter of dispute, that the

appellant-assessee had not been assessed as a Hindu Undivided

Family ever before the Assessment Year in question, namely

1997-98. We are, therefore, of the firm view, that the second

essential ingredient for the applicability of sub-section(9) of
ITA NO.30 OF 2006 [12]

Section 171 of the Act cannnot be treated to have been fulfilled

in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such we

are of the view that sub-section(9) of Section 171 of the Act

would be clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above, we are of the view that the

following substantial question of law framed at the time of

admission of the instant appeal deserves to be answered in

favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue:

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the action of the authorities below in
invoking the provision of Section 171, when the
appellant was never assessed before the issuance of
notice under Section 148 of the Act on 14.3.2002 for
assessment year 1997-98, is illegally sustainable in
the eyes of law?”

Answered accordingly. Resultantly, the instant appeal

is allowed and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal 10.6.2005 assessing the appellant-assessee under

Section 171 of the Income Tax Act is hereby set aside.

[J.S.KHEHAR]
JUDGE

[NAWAB SINGH]
JUDGE
20.01.2009
SKaushik