Commissioner of Income Tax vs T. Lekshmikutty Amma

T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.—Two questions are raised in these petitions u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which relate to the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1983-84. One of the questions raised is relating to the assessability of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal held based on the decision of this court in Wealth Tax Officer, C-Ward Vs. K. Madhavan Nambiar, that having regard to the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, the assessee was not liable to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal declined to refer the question of law arising out of this finding because the matter stood concluded by the decision of this court in Wealth Tax Officer, C-Ward Vs. K. Madhavan Nambiar, . The application filed by the Revenue to compel reference of this question u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to another year, namely, Original Petition No. 16493 of 1992 was dismissed by us on the ground that the matter stood covered by the aforesaid decision and that no purpose will be served by directing reference of this question. One of the questions raised in all these three petitions before us relates to the assessability or otherwise of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family.

The assessments involved in these cases are all assessments reopened u/s 147(b) of the Act. The original assessments had been completed otherwise than in the status of a Hindu undivided family based on the decision of this court in K. MADHAVAN NAMBIAR Vs. WEALTH-TAX OFFICER, C-WARD, CANNANORE., . Subsequently and in view of another decision rendered by another learned single judge of this court in Sankaranarayanan Bhattathiripad, Viroopakshan Bhattathiripad, Raman Bhattathiripad and Valia Aryan Bhattathiripad Vs. Income Tax Officer, , the Income Tax Officer purported to reopen the assessment u/s 147(b) to hold that the assessee was liable to be assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the reopening was bad in law. He also held that the contention of the assessee not to be treated as a Hindu undivided family for purposes of assessment was sustainable. He set aside the reopened assessments accordingly. On appeal by the Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal confirmed this decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the proceedings initiated u/s 147(b) were without jurisdiction and also that the assessee was not liable to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Revenue has sought reference of the two questions, one relating to the reopening and the other relating to the status of the assessee to be referred to this court for determination, after their applications for reference were dismissed by the Tribunal. Counsel for the Revenue submits that, though the question relating to the status was refused to be referred by us in Original Petition No. 16493 of 1992, still that question also ought to be referred, as according to him the finding of the Tribunal on the question of reopening u/s 147(b) is unsustainable in law. He refers to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd., , to contend that a reopening does not cease to be valid merely because the decision on which the reopening was done was subsequently reversed by a superior court, According to him, therefore, both the questions required should be referred to this court for determination, even though the question relating to status stands held against the Revenue by the decisions of this court.

We do not find that any purpose will be subserved by directing a reference of any of the questions of law. We have already noted that a reference application relating to another year relating to the status of the very same assessee was rejected. Therefore, the matter stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this court. Even if the reopening is held valid by this court differing from the view taken by the Tribunal, ultimately, the reopened assessment cannot be upheld in view of the prior decisions of this court and also the refusal by us to refer the very same question in Original Petition No. 10493 of 1992. We, therefore, feel that no purpose will be served by directing a reference of the questions of law. We do not therefore find that any purpose will be subserved by referring either of the questions to this court.

We, therefore, decline to grant the prayer of the Revenue. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.