9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in agreeing with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in cancelling the assessment made in the case of Smt. Durgawati Singh, on the basis of the return filed by her?" The respondent-assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partner in the firm through his wife, namely, the assessee in this reference. Consequently, the Income-tax Officer held that the entire determined share income of the assessee in the registered firm as well as the income for the period the said business was a proprietary concern during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in dispute, would be clubbed with the income of Vijay Singh an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the assessment made in his hands, and in due course, the matter was referred to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, being I. T. R. No. 224 of 1981. Both the references were heard together. By a separate judgment of date we have upheld the clubbing of the disputed income in the hands of the assessee's husband (see Vijay Bahadur Singh v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 934 (All)). W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sband in I. T. R. No. 22 of 1981---Vijay Bahadur Singh v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 934 (All), the income in dispute could not be upheld in the hands of the assessee. In our opinion, no exception can be taken to the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the assessment in respect of the disputed income has already been upheld in the hands of the assessee's husband and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
