9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the order for the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent firm went up in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Income Tax Officer gave effect to the order of the Additional Commissioner and clubbed the income of the firm M/s.K.R.Gopal Iyer and Brothers with that of the respondent. Likewise the Income Tax Officer included income of the firm M/s Bhimas Lodge in the total income of the firm M/s. Bhimas Annexe. Similarly, pursuant to the directions of the Additional Commissioner, the Income Tax Officer included the income of the firm M/s. K.R. Ramanatha Iyer and Bros. In the total income of the firm New Bhima Lunch Home Tirupati. Against the others of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Madras vs. MTT. Ar. Arunachalam Chettier(1). The facts in that case were that an appeal was preferred by the assessee under s. 30(1) of the Income tax Act, 1922 against an order of the Income Tax Officer, and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as incompetent. No appeal was filed against this order and it became final. But acting on a suggestion made in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee filed an original miscellaneous application before the Appellate Tribunal for relief. On this miscellaneous petition the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Income Tax Officer and directed him to make a fresh computation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under s. 33(4) and there being no order under s. 33(4) there could be no reference under s. 66(1) or (2) and the appellate court properly refused to entertain it........." Thereafter further submissions of Ms. Swaminathan were noted in the said decision. We may at once say that the aforesaid observations cannot be read as a pronouncement on the question of the maintainability of the appeal. In our opinion, the observations must be limited to the facts of that case. Mr. Swami, the learned counsel for the respondent has maintained that the appeals filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are undoubtedly competent. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kooka Sidhwa Co. vs. Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
