9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 on identical issues even though not accepted by the Department and which decision was available to the Income-tax Officer before he completed the assessment ? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that only 1/7th of the share income from M/s. Southern Mercantile Corporation was includible in the hands of the assessee ? The assessee was a partner in a firm called Southern Mercantile Corporation. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the assessee claimed that she is liable only in relation to 1/7th of the share income from Southern Mercantile Corporation and not the entire income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld, the revisional proceedings cannot be sustained and in that view it set aside the revisional order of the Commissioner and sustained the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that only 1/7th share income of the firm should be included in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal with reference to the assessment year 1973-74, the above two questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue. So far as the first question is concerned, it is seen that the Tribunal was of the view that the Commissioner was in error in proceeding on the basis that the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that only 1/7th share income of the firm is includible in the hands of the assessee is prejudicial to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held in CIT v. Lakshmi Narayanan [1981] 132 ITR 355, that the entire share income from the firm of M/s. Southern Mercantile Corporation should be included in the hands of the assessee and following the said decision which was rendered in the assessee's own case for the earlier years, the second question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the assessee makes an oral application for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now rendered. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, against the decision in CIT v. Lakshmi Narayanan [1981] 132 ITR 355 (Mad), the Supreme Court has granted special leave and now t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
