9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Inclusion of minor son's share income in the assessment of the husband. 3. Interpretation of Section 64(1)(iii) and Explanation 1 regarding taxation of minor's income. 4. Admissibility of objections raised by the assessee against the inclusion of share income. 5. Applicability of constructive notice in tax assessments. 6. Consideration of objections by the appellate authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed one day late, and the delay was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal based on the reasons provided in the affidavit. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 1979-80. 2. The issue revolved around the inclusion of the minor son's share income from Srivastava Agencies in the assessment of the assessee, who was the husband. 3. The assessee contended that since the minor's income was already taxed in the assessment of the wife and not disputed, it should have been taxed in the wife's hands. However, the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) held that as per Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, the income of the minor should be taxed in the hands of the husband due to his higher income. 4. The assessee argued that the inclusion of the minor's share income in the husband's assessment, after it was already included in the wife's assessment, was improper. The assessee relied on a decision by the Gujarat High Court to support this argument. 5. The departmental representative contended that there was constructive notice regarding the inclusion of the share income in the husband's assessment. They also argued that objections should have been raised at an earlier stage and could be considered by the appellate authority. 6. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 64(1)(iii) and the Explanation 1, citing a judgment by the Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal concluded that the inclusion of the minor's income in the husband's assessment, after being included in the wife's assessment, was not valid. Specific notice should have been given by the assessing officer who first included the income. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that objections based on statutory provisions were admissible, and the inclusion of the minor's income in the husband's assessment was incorrect.
|
