MUKUNCHAND BOTHRA & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in dated 08.12.2016 for the assessment year 2001- 02, in dated 08.12.2016 for the assessment year 2002-03, in ITA No.117/CIT(A)-5/13-14 dated 08.12.2016 for the assessment year 2005-06, and in ITA No.116/CIT(A)-5/13-14 dated 08.12.2016 for the assessment year 2006-07.

Shri Gagan Botara represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.

As all these four appeals of assessee involved identical issue, the same is disposed off by this common order.

It was submitted by ld.A.R that the ld. Assessing Officer had made assessments in the status of HUF. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) without granting opportunity to the assessee has held that the existence of HUF is not proved. It was a submission that once HUF has been held to not exist, assessments in the status of HUF cannot survive. In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A).

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the existence of HUF in the case of assessee has been held to have been not proved. This being so, the existence of HUF status being questioned and its existence is not accepted, assessments of the assessee in the status of HUF cannot survive. Consequently, the assessments made in the hands of HUF for the assessment years 2001- 02, 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07 status stands quashed.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.