C.I.T. BOMBAY versus ONKARMAL MEGHRAJ (H.U.F.) & ORS.

C.I.T. BOMBAY versus ONKARMAL MEGHRAJ (H.U.F.) & ORS.

Only those assessees who were parties before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Tribunal (the 3 Kartas who had filed individual returns and were assessed as HUFs) are covered by the second proviso to s. 34(3) of the 1953 Act and not barred by limitation. For other assessees who were not parties, action under s. 34(1)(b) was barred as limitation had expired before 1-4-1952; amendment does not revive time-barred assessments.

Parties
Appellant: C.I.T. Bombay; Respondents: Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.) & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 August 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; three appeals allowed, others dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 34 Reassessment, Limitation Periods, Amendment Acts, Hindu Undivided Families (huf), Partnership Assessments
Income Tax Law Section 34 Reassessment Limitation Periods Amendment Acts Hindu Undivided Families (huf) Partnership Assessments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.I.T. Bombay

Appellant

Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.) & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reassessments under s. 34(3) are governed by limitation period after the 1953 amendment
  2. 2 Whether remedy under s. 34 was time-barred before retrospective effect of amendment for certain assessees

Ratio Decidendi

Only those assessees who were parties before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Tribunal (the 3 Kartas who had filed individual returns and were assessed as HUFs) are covered by the second proviso to s. 34(3) of the 1953 Act and not barred by limitation. For other assessees who were not parties, action under s. 34(1)(b) was barred as limitation had expired before 1-4-1952; amendment does not revive time-barred assessments.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; three appeals allowed, others dismissed.

Orders

  • Civil Appeals Nos. 2264 of 1969, 2258 of 1969, and 2272 of 1969 are allowed with costs.
  • Other 9 appeals are dismissed with costs.