9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown by the assessee as firm's income - . The only explanation which could be given by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the agricultural income was wrongly shown as that of the assessee firm in the earlier assessment years - There is no justification for giving a different treatment to the agricultural income on the mere saying of the assessee Firm – Moreover findings of fact of the ITAT can not be held as illegal or perverse - 210 of 1983 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2009 - Petitioner Counsel :- Rishi Ram,K.M. Garg,Virendra Singh Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,Bharat Ji Agawal Connected With Case :- INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. - 141 of 1984 Petitioner :- Jageshwar Prasad Respondent :- C.I.T. Petitioner Counsel :- K.M. Garg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Firm by the Assessing Officer. It was objected on behalf of the Firm on the plea that the agricultural income does not belong to the partnership firm but to the Hindu undivided family consisting of the remaining three sons of late Tula Ram. The said plea did not find favour either with the assessing officer or with the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee. The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the agricultural income in question belonged to the assessee firm?" Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons. Tula Ram died in the year 1953. His three sons Rajeshwar Prasad, Rameshwar Prasad and Jageshwar Prasad formed the partnership firm. However, the fourth son Sri Ram Charan separated himself himself from the joint Hindu family. It has been further found by the Tribunal and which has not been disputed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee, that in the earlier assessment year the agricultural income was shown by the assessee as firm's income. The only explanation which could be given by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the agricultural income was wrongly shown as that of the assessee firm in the earlier assessment years. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that in the earlier assessment years, the agricultural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
