| Case ID |
730899e6-6bec-49d7-8901-47d89817097a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MATTER No. 161 OF 1969 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 04, 1970 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The petition filed by Mahabir Prosad Poddar was dismissed. The court held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner as the karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) despite previous notices being addressed to him as an individual. The court found that the petitioner himself had filed revised returns in the status of HUF and that the assessments completed on that basis were valid. The application was deemed mala fide as it was an attempt to avoid tax obligations on substantial undisclosed income. The court emphasized that the correct status of the assessee was determined through the revised returns and that the original notices did not invalidate the assessment process. |
| Summary |
In the case of Mahabir Prosad Poddar v. Income Tax Officer, the Calcutta High Court addressed the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer regarding the assessment of income escaping assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolves around the petitioner's status as an individual versus that of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The court ruled that the ITO acted within his rights when assessing the petitioner as an HUF after he filed revised returns. This decision is significant for tax professionals and advocates as it clarifies the authority of tax officers in correcting the status of an assessee during assessment proceedings. The ruling also highlights the importance of accurate disclosures in tax filings and the consequences of attempting to misrepresent facts to evade tax liabilities. This case is relevant for discussions on tax law, income assessment, and the implications of misrepresentation in tax filings. Key terms include income tax assessment, HUF, jurisdiction, tax liabilities, and revised returns. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
K.L. Roy, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. D. Pal for the Petitioner,
Dilip K. Sen and Dipak Sen for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Mahabir Prosad Poddar
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1971 SLD 672 = (1971) 82 ITR 299
|
| Other Citations |
Chooharmal Wadhuram v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 88 (Guj.),
CIT v. Adinarayana Murty [1965] 67 ITR 607; [1967] 3 SCR 388 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
148,
4,
271(4A)
|