1976 (6) TMI 37 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Late filing of cross-objection by the assessee.
2. Deletion of Rs. 33,153 from taxable income of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Late filing of cross-objection:
The cross-objection filed by the assessee was delayed by two days. However, the Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the reasons for the delay, condoned the delay as it was satisfied that there were sufficient reasons for the delay. The cross-objection did not seek any relief but was filed to support the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the cross-objection was deemed infructuous and was dismissed.

2. Deletion of Rs. 33,153 from taxable income:
The appeal by the revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 33,153 from the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72. The case involved the adoption of the assessee by Smt. Manbhawati Devi and her husband, and the subsequent transfer of properties to the assessee. The Tribunal, in previous years, had ruled that the properties bequeathed by Smt. Manbhawati Devi belonged jointly to the assessee, his wife, and their minor daughter, and did not acquire the character of joint family property. The Tribunal held that the share of interest-income from a particular firm belonged to the HUF of the assessee, his wife, and daughter. The Tribunal also noted that the facts and circumstances of the present appeal were similar to previous years, and therefore, upheld the deletion of Rs. 33,153 from the taxable income of the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision and dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 33,153 from the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 based on the previous rulings and findings related to the property transfer and income distribution. The Tribunal dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections, finding no grounds to interfere with the decision.