S.C : Whether the house property in question belongs to the appellant in his individual capacity or it belongs to the HUF of which he is a member.

Supreme Court Of India

Sajan Kumar Bhawsinka vs. CIT & Anr.

Section 264

Asst. Year 1981-82

B.N. Kirpal & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3914 of 1986

22nd January, 1998

JUDGMENT

By the court :

The question involved in this appeal is whether the house property in question belongs to the appellant in his individual capacity or it belongs to the HUF of which he is a member.

2. Under the WT Act, the property in question was regarded as belonging to an HUF in the years prior to 1981-82, which is the relevant year in question. The appellant had been including income from this house property in his income-tax return on the basis that it was his individual income for the year 1981-82, but then filed a revision return claiming the income to be assessable in the hands of the HUF. However, the appellant’s claim that as the property belongs to the HUF, therefore, the income should also be assessed in the hands of the HUF, was not accepted by the ITO whereupon the appellant filed a revision petition under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961, before the CIT.

3. The CIT by a cryptic order dt. 20th May, 1985, rejected the said petition by observing that there was no merit therein and mere assertion without any corroborative evidence could not be allowed to disturb the settled matter.

4. The writ petition filed against the aforesaid order of the CIT was dismissed by another cryptic order wherein it was stated that after hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court did not find any merit in the writ petition.

5. In our opinion, the contentions which were raised by the appellant required a more careful examination and a considered decision should have been given both by the CIT as well as by the High Court. This having not have been done, it will be appropriate that the revision petition filed by the appellant under s. 264 of the IT Act is reconsidered by the CIT.

6. We, accordingly, while allowing this appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court as well as of the CIT and direct that the revision petition under s. 264 filed by the appellant to be decided afresh by the CIT at an early date. There will be no order as to costs.

[Citation: 236 ITR 38]

Malcare WordPress Security