AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhan, J.—Counsel for the Revenue filed this petition u/s 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for referring the following question to this court along with the statement of the case for its opinion :
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the assessment framed by the Gift-tax Officer on the ground that the assessment had been framed in a status different from that in which the gift-tax return had been filed ?"
The point involved in this case was regarding the status of the assessee. A return was filed by the legal heirs of the assessee mentioning the status as Hindu undivided family whereas the Gift-tax Officer framed the assessment in the status of an individual. The order of the Gift-tax Officer was upheld in appeal by the first appellate authority against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. After a detailed discussion, the Tribunal concluded that the option of declaring a status while filing the return is that of the assessee. If the Revenue intends raising assessment in a status different than the one offered, it must take appropriate action by issuing notice. It was found by the Tribunal as under :
".... it would have been a different matter if the Gift-tax Officer had required the legal heiresses to file the return in the status of individuals but the return was filed declaring Hindu undivided family status and the Gift-tax Officer raised assessment in the same status in which the notice was issued. We have already observed that in the notice u/s 13(2), the legal heiresses were not required to file the return in any particular status and such being the case, the Gift-tax Officer was in error in taking the status as an individual against the declared status of Hindu undivided family. On the facts, therefore, we are unable to sustain the assessment and accepting the assessee''s appeal cancel the assessment raised. . . ."
The findings recorded by the Tribunal are of fact. No referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed. No costs.