Home › Tax Laws › CIT .v. Bhawani Singhji & Ors. (2018) 305 CTR 161 / 171 DTR 121 (Delhi)(HC)

CIT .v. Bhawani Singhji & Ors. (2018) 305 CTR 161 / 171 DTR 121 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Hindu undivided family–Individual- Regardless of what an assessee claims, if the correct factual position is otherwise, the Assessing Officer has to adopt correct position-. Even if SM had filed returns in the status of ‘individual’ if the correct status is that of HUF, then there is no legal impediment for the legal heirs to claim that the succession was of the HUF. Tribunal was therefore right in law in holding that the status of the assessee was that of an HUF. [ S.2(31))(ii)]

The High Court held that:

  1. There is no material on record to show that the Kachwaha clans (which the Jaipur royal house belonged to) was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture (Jyeshthaadhikaar).
  2. Further, Late Maharaja of Jaipur’s (SM) position, post Paramountancy in the year 1947, was reduced to an ordinary citizen. Hence, he had to and did file tax returns, declaring his wealth and income in accordance with the laws and SM was governed by the ordinary rules of inheritance applicable to members of HUF;
  3. It is now established that regardless of what an assessee claims, if the correct factual position is otherwise, the Assessing Officer has to adopt correct position. Hence, even if SM had filed returns in the status of ‘individual’ if the correct status is that of HUF, then there is no legal impediment for the legal heirs to claim that the succession was of the HUF. Tribunal was therefore right in law in holding that the status of the assessee was that of an HUF.

(AY.1970-1971)