Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
Section 143 –
Assessment order passed in the name and status of the HUF where the notice was
issued in the name and status of an individual is invalid and such an
assessment order deserves to be quashed
FACTS
The assessment order was passed in the status of the HUF,
whereas proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act in
the name of the individual. Both the individual and the HUF were assessed to
tax and had different and distinct PAN numbers. The first notice for getting
jurisdiction to make the assessment was issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act in the
name of the individual and the PAN number of the individual was clearly
mentioned. However, assessment was made in the hands of the HUF.
Aggrieved,
the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who decided it on merits but did
not decide the jurisdictional issue and passed an ex parte order against
the assessee.
The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal
where it was pointed out that the information received under the Right to
Information Act clearly mentioned that notice was issued for the individual and
proceedings were carried out for the individual. However, the assessment was
made in the name of the HUF.
HELD
The Tribunal held that since notice was issued in the name
of the individual and assessment completed and made in the name of the HUF, the
assessment order was invalid and bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the
assessment order. It decided in favour of the assessee.