9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the failure to raise the issue of joint family dissolution during the assessment stage bars its consideration in appeal. 2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner can refuse to adjudicate on the law point regarding the claim of partition of the Hindu undivided family. 3. Whether there is a legal impediment for the Assistant Commissioner to entertain the plea and provide a finding on it. Analysis: 1. The case involved a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding a joint Hindu family in Peshawar City engaged in banking activities and owning house property. The head of the family, Rai Bahadur Karam Chand, was assessed on a taxable income of &8377; 1,41,057 for the accounting period of 1927-28. An appeal was made to the Assistant Commissioner claiming the family had been dissolved due to a pending partition suit. The Income Tax Commissioner opined that objections not raised during assessment under Section 25-A cannot be brought up in appeal under Section 30(1), thereby upholding the refusal of the Assistant Commissioner to consider the dissolution claim in appeal. 2. The Income Tax Commissioner's opinion was based on the premise that objections under Section 25-A should have been raised during assessment, and any dissatisfaction with the assessment order could be appealed under Section 30(1). Thus, the Assistant Commissioner was within his rights to decline adjudication on the dissolution claim in the absence of such objections during the assessment stage. The provisions of Section 30(1) were deemed to preclude the Assistant Commissioner from entertaining the plea regarding the joint family dissolution. 3. The judgment emphasized the procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act, stating that the petitioner's attempt to raise the issue of joint family dissolution in appeal without prior objection during assessment was contrary to the statutory framework. The court concluded that the Income Tax Commissioner's decision to reject the petitioner's appeal grounds was correct, and the Assistant Commissioner was justified in refusing to delve into the matter. Ultimately, the petitioner was directed to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the case was concluded with the return of the relevant documents. Separate Judgment by Johnstone, J.: 5. Judge Johnstone concurred with the decision and opinion of Broadway, J., indicating agreement with the analysis and outcome of the case.
|
