Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1968 (10) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first instance, an appeal was filed by Babu Ram, partner. That appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on July 28, 1962. In the meanwhile, another partner, Mahabir Prasad, filed an independent appeal on May 5, 1962. The appeal of Mahabir Prasad was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on January 8, 1963, on two grounds. Firstly, the appeal was barred by time. Secondly, in view of the prior appeal filed by Babu Ram, partner, another appeal by Mahabir Prasad was not maintainable. Against the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Mahabir Prasad went up in further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench " C ". The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eof between the several partners, but in respect of matters which are determined by such order may not appeal against the assessment of his own total income : ....... It is common ground that Mahabir Prasad as a partner was entitled to file an appeal under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act. But, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., that right of Mahabir Prasad was extinguished by the fact that Babu Ram had filed an appeal previously. We do not see how Mahabir Prasad's right of appeal can be extinguished by the mere fact that another appeal had been filed by another partner, Babu Ram. Babu Ram and Mahabir Prasad were both partners of the dissolved firm. They both had a right of appeal under the se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the demand notice several years after the dissolution of the firm. It is, therefore, doubtful whether service upon Satya Deo can be treated as service of the demand notice upon Mahabir Prasad. Even if it is assumed that Mahabir Prasad was constructively served with the demand notice on March 27, 1962, matters do not materially improve for the Commissioner of Income-tax. We must bear in mind that Mahabir Prasad spent 15 days in obtaining a copy of the assessment order. The question arises whether Mahabir Prasad is entitled to exclude that period of 15 days for computing limitation. Mahabir Prasad relied upon section 67A of the Act. Section 67A stated : " In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal under this Act or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates