9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the assessee should have filed two separate appeals under different sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or if one composite appeal was sufficient to challenge both the quantum of income assessed and the refusal of registration as a firm. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee, a jewelry firm, contested its assessment as an "association of persons" instead of a firm for the assessment year 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 35,000, comprising business income and income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially allowed the appeal, reducing the business income and deleting the addition of income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also disagreed with the status of the assessee as an "association of persons." The Revenue appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which opined that separate appeals under different clauses of section 246 of the Income-tax Act should have been filed by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the assessee to specify the nature of the appeal filed. The assessee challenged this view through a reference to the High Court. The High Court analyzed relevant case law, including CIT v. Rupa Traders and CIT v. Hansa Agencies, which supported the contention that one composite appeal could be filed to seek reliefs under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that changes in statutory provisions rendered the requirement of filing separate appeals unnecessary. As no authority or principle was presented to support a contrary proposition, the court ruled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in requiring the assessee to file two separate appeals and set aside the Tribunal's direction. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
|
