9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " Since a common question of law involved in these two R.Cs., we decide the same by the following common order. Before we proceed to answer these references, a few relevant facts leading to the references, are traced hereunder: The late Gopal Rao who is the wealth-tax assessee died on November 9, 1973, leaving behind his widow, Rajeswari Bai, two sons, viz., Srinivasa Rao and Ramakrishna Rao and two married daughters, viz., Timmabai and Sarada and mother, Timmabai. He also executed a will on November 2, 1973, giving his property to his widow and his four grandsons through the sons, namely, Gopala Krishna Rao, Gopala Rao, Murali Krishna and Mohan Krishna. For the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1973-74, the Wealth tax Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after considering the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal granting certain concessions with regard to certain claims made by the assessee. Thereafter, the matter was carried before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the assessee aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in declining to grant certain relief on certain items. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised an additional ground before the appellate authority contending that all the legal representatives of the karta of the Hindu undivided family should have been brought as legal representatives instead of Sriniv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive provisions (charging sections). Any such omission or defect may render the order irregular-depending upon the nature of the provision not complied with-but certainly not void or illegal." In this case, the Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court in K.P. Mathew v. Agrl. ITO [1974] 96 ITR 121, wherein it was held as under: "The petitioner received the notice as a legal representative of his father and he did not point out that there were other legal representatives nor did he object to the validity of the assessment proceedings on that ground. He could not object to the validity of the assessment on such a ground, firstly, because he was a party to the assessment proceedings, and secondly, because he was estoppe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
