9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructions". In its assessment for the year 1976-77 the ITO included 50 per cent share income in the said firm, as determined in the firm's assessment in G.I. No. 11351-V dt. 20th Aug., 1977, which amounted to Rs. 22,874. The assessee went in appeal before the AAC contending that "the order of the learned ITO fixing the share income at Rs. 22,874 is contrary to law and facts of the case". The AAC d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to him he does not fall under s. 247 because he was not questioning the total income or the loss of the firm or the apportionment thereof between the several partners. 4. The Department representative relied on the order of the AAC and further contended that since the remuneration was a part of the apportionment of the share income, the assessee will come under the preclusion provision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can appeal against any order of the ITO determining the amount of the total income or the loss of the firm or the apportionment thereof between the several partners. Thus questioning the inclusion or otherwise of the salary would not amount to questioning the apportionment between the several partners. What is meant by apportionment between the several partners is with reference to inter se apport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed in the hands of the partner in his individual capacity, such a question is nothing but denying the liability to be assessed and it is appealable under s. 246(c). In my opinion s. 247 does not take away the right of appeal under s. 246(c). The view that a partner can question the inclusion of the salary income in the hands of the HUF is supported by several decisions. One such case is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h cases. I, therefore, hold that the AAC went wrong in dismissing the appeal as incompetent. On the other hand he should have entertained the appeal and considered the issue on merit. As regards the contention that the remuneration received by the Kartha of the assessee HUF is assessable in his individual hands and not in the hands of the HUF. Since the AAC has not considered this issue on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
