9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applicable. There was no question of inclusion of the income of the wife at the hands of the husband. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the proceeding under section 147(a) cannot be reopened by the assessing authority. - - - - - Dated:- 2-2-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the opinion to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct to hold that there was no obligation on the assessee to disclose the income which arose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also challenged on the ground that the condition precedent for taking action under the aforesaid section was not satisfied in the facts of the case. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that all the material facts necessary for his assessment were available with the Income-tax Officer at the time of making original assessment and, therefore, reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Act was bad in law. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has upheld the validity of the action under section 147(a) of the Act on the following grounds: "I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. I do not agree with him because the position regarding the clubbing of income in such type of cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, with effect from April 1, 1976, stood as follows: "(ii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner." Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 64 are similarly worded. Clause (ii) to the above section came up for consideration before the apex court in the case of CIT v. Shri Om Prakash [1996] 217 ITR 785 in which the apex court has held that where a person is a partner in a partnership firm not in his individual capacity but as the karta of the Hindu undivided family, neither the income accruing to his wife on account of her being a partner in the same partnership firm nor the income accruing to his minor children on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
