9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he protective assessment order - - - - - Dated:- 7-10-2002 - Judge(s) : G. SIVARAJAN., K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by G. SIVARAJAN J.-The matter arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The appellant is a partner in a firm, M.M. Chandy and Co., Kottayam. The assessment year concerned is 1975-76. The assessment of the said partnership firm was completed by making an addition of Rs. 27,040 (rupees twenty seven thousand forty only) as income from undisclosed sources. The assessing authority also made a protective assessment on the appellant in respect of the sum of Rs. 27,040 added in the firm's assessment, as per order dated January 17, 1978 (exhibit A1). The firm filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by limitation while admittedly the order was served on the assessee only on August 9, 1991, and the appeal was filed on August 29, 1991? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that I.T.A. No. 470/Coch. of 1995 does not survive for consideration in view of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 332 (Coch) of 1993? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in disposing of the appeal without entering into a final finding of fact when the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal not on question of limitation but only on facts and when there was no cross-objection from the Department on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 282 of the Act, that the assessment order was served at the address given by the appellant in the return and that too, to the father of the appellant, who is the managing partner of the firm. Senior counsel further submits that the Tribunal has clearly stated the circumstances under which the copy of the assessment order was served on the managing partner of the firm. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the orders of the two appellate authorities. The first appellate authority has noted that the appellant had given address in the return of income as M.M. Chandy and Co., Kottayam, that notice was issued to the appellant in the said address, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower of attorney holder of the assessee, he is the father of the assessee and also the managing partner of the firm, M.M. Chandy and Co., Kottayam, in which the assessee is also a partner. Further, when the hearing notice was first served on Sri Chandy, he had not objected to such service on behalf of the assessee. Sri Chandy, being father of the assessee, is a family member of the assessee. For all these reasons, we have no alternative except to hold that the service of notice on Sri M.M. Chandy, managing partner of M.M. Chandy on behalf of the assessee was valid and proper. Therefore, we hold that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that the appeal was filed late by 13 years of the date of assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
