9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (2) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... understand the question raised are briefly these. P. Section EM. Ramaswami Chettiar constituted with his son Subrahmaniam Chettiar, a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition in the family between the father and the son on 14-3-1941, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in a deed executed between the parties on 9-4-1941. This division was accepted by the departmental authorities under Section 25-A of the Act on 28-1-19-12 in respect of the assessment for the year 1941-42. The year of account for the assessee was the Tamil year and the relevant accounting year was 13-4-1940 to 13-4-1941. The assessment of the family for the year 1941-42 in respect of the income for the period from 13-4-1940 was completed on 24-3-1942. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally it wound up with a prayer: to reconsider your petitioner's claim and render justice. It will be seen that this was not an application contemplated by any of the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act; and it is for this reason that we have termed it a miscellaneous petition. 4. The Income-Tax Office r referred to the previous orders on the subject by the departmental authorities and rejected the claim for relief. Against that order Ramaswami Chettiar preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli, who held that the appeal was incompetent, as it was not covered by any of the provisions of Section 30, Income Tax Act. 5. Ramaswami Chettiar took the matter on further appeal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and that consequently no appeal lay to the Tribunal from the order of the Assistant Commissioner; and therefore there was no competent order of the Tribunal under Section 33(4) to enable the Tribunal to state a case for the determination of this Court. 8. The point raised by the learned counsel is fully established by the decision of the 'Supreme Court in -- Commr. of Income Tax, Madras v. MTT. AR. S. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar MANU/SC/0102/1953 : [1953]23ITR180(SC) , (A). As the legal position is not challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not consider it necessary to set out this decision in full. The benefit under the first part of Section 25 (4) is certainly one to which an assessee who satisfies the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
