9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, Chhaganlal, for the assessment year 1971-72 was completed under section 143(1) on November 12, 1971. He had applied for reopening the assessment under section 143(2)(a) as the status shown as Hindu undivided family in the return was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer, considering the fact that the business of iron and hardware was started by the assessee in his individual capacity and that right from Samvat year 2015 (assessment year 1960-61), he was assessed as an individual, and other circumstances, held that the status of the assessee as individual was rightly adopted by him. The assessee's income was thus computed and tax liability was assessed on that basis. This order was passed on March 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided family. The Tribunal, after considering the partition deed, the statements of other coparceners and other relevant facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that the business in question really belonged to the Hindu undivided family and that it was not the individual business of the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the income from the business should be shown in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. As regards the contention regarding partition, the Tribunal noted the fact that, against the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, no separate appeal was filed by the assessee and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Income-tax Officer that no partition had taken place could not be reconsidered in the quantum a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this court in Patel and Co. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 568. In that case, it was held (headnote) : "A right of appeal conferred by the statute has to be liberally construed and where appeals lie to the same authority, it would be too technical an approach to adopt to partly reject a composite appeal on the ground that separate appeals ought to have been filed instead of a composite one. The right of appeal is by way of a remedy provided by the statute and should not ordinarily be denied to the assessee unless the law prohibits it. It cannot be said that a single composite appeal would not lie because different clauses of sub-section (1) of section 246 were attracted, namely, clause (c) in so far as the appeal was against the order of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure which he has to follow in quantum appeal. In the quantum appeal, only the assessee is required to be heard ; whereas, in the appeal against the order passed under section 171, all affected parties are required to be heard. For this reason, he submitted that it should be held that a composite appeal is not competent. As pointed out by this court in Patel and Co. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 568, if the Act and the rules made thereunder do not prohibit the filing of a composite appeal, it should not be dismissed on the ground that it is not competent. If appeals are provided to the same authority against two or more orders passed by the Income-tax Officer, then merely because these appeals are provided by different clauses of section 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
