9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. As per the case of the appellant, it was a complete partition, while the Department was treating it as a partial partition. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated Annexure A-8, found that it was a partial partition and accordingly allowed the appeal of revenue and restored the order of assessing officer, who had assessed the appellant, treating the partition, as partial partition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Misc.W.T.A. No.46/2000, in the matter of the appellant itself, and vide order dated 13.03.2008, the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunal, to reconsider the issue. It is submitted that in view of direction in Misc. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer placed reliance on the decision rendered in Kallomal Tapeshwari Prasad (HUF) vs. CIT, 133 ITR 690 and came to hold that as there has been partial partition the provision contained in Section 20A of the Act will not get attracted. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the assessee-appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who analysing the facts in detail expressed the opinion that there has been a complete partition. Being of this view the first appellate authority directed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the matter on the foundation that there had been complete partition. 4. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Revenue before the tribunal and the tribunal after referring to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l further submitted that the tribunal has rejected the claim of complete partition without factual analysis and, therefore, the same involves a substantial question of law inasmuch as when a tribunal which is vested with jurisdiction to act in a particular manner and it does not carry out statutory responsibility the same gives rise to a substantial question of law. 6. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Sanjay Lal appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the tribunal. 7. We have carefully perused the order passed by the tribunal. On a bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the order by which the tribunal has composed its reasoning, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpretive of the fact that there has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
