Case Law Details
Thus once ld. Assessing Officer reached a opinion that assessment was to be done only in the status of ‘individual’ and not in the status of ‘HUF’, he was bound to issue a notice to the assessee in his individual status. An ‘individual’ and an ‘HUF’ are different persons under the Income Tax Act, and notice to one cannot be deemed as notice to the other. Section 2(31) clearly brings out this differentiation. In the case before us, there was a clear failure to issue notice to the assessee in his individual status. Sec. 292BB of the Act can cure only were a notice is claimed by a assessee not to have been served on him or served on him out of time or served in an improper manner. It cannot cure a situation were there was no issue of notices u/s. 148 or u/s. 143(2) of the Act.
Contention of the Assessee
Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessment was bad in law since it was initiated on a return filed by the assessee in HUF status. As per ld. Authorised Representative Assessing Officer if he found that the property was purchased in the individual status of the assessee, ought have issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee in his individual status. This was never done. Notice was admittedly issued in the status of HUF. Assessment having being done u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, as per ld. Authorised Representative notice issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act was mandatory. As per the ld. Authorised Representative even the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee only in HUF status. Thus, according to him assessment in the HUF status of the assessee was bad in law. Ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on the third member decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suraf Mal, HUF vs. ITO (2007) 109 lTD 327.
Contention of the Revenue
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
