9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has referred the following question to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : " Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the matter back to the file of the Income-tax Officer and directing him to pass an order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act pursuant to the order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther stated in the return that the income arising as a result of the said partial partition was not included in the total income of the bigger-Hindu undivided family as the same after the partition did not belong to the bigger-Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee in view of sub-section (9) of section 171 of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that section 171 is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, before the Madras High Court declared section 171(9) ultra vires, the decision of the Karnataka High Court was already in the field and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered both the decisions and should not, following the Madras decision, have directed the Income-tax Officer to pass an order under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is invalid. At the time when the Tribunal decided the appeal, that was the only decision in the field and, therefore, in view of what the Bombay High Court has held in CIT v. Godavaridevi Saraf (Smt.) [1978] 113 ITR 589 and CIT v. Smt. Nirmalabai K. Darekar [1990] 186 ITR 242 (Bom), the Tribunal was bound to follow the said judgment of the Madras High Court. It, therefore, cannot be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
