9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 1955-56. Subsequently, revised returns were filed on October 10, 1958, for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer in making the order of assessment did not accept the assessee's contentions and assessed 1/4th share of the income of the estate less statutory allowance of Rs. 4,500. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that one of the members of the association of persons had no definite or determined share of income from the estate and, therefore, income could be assessed only in the hands of the said association of persons. On further appeal to the Income-tax Tribunal by the department the Tribunal by a consolidated order dated May 18, 1964, rejected the department's contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicants contended that in the reference under section 66(2) of the 1922 Act, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have already been brought on the record but in the references under section 66(1) of the said Act the name of the deceased still appears. It was submitted that on March 25, 1970, the Commissioner made an application for consolidation of References Nos. 202, 210 and 215 of 1967 with Reference No. 169 of 1967. On this application an order was made on March 31, 1970, by which this court allowed the Commissioner's application for consolidation. This order for consolidation has become final and is binding on the parties. Learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that this application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for as Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code did not apply. As against this, however, our attention was drawn to another Bench decision of the Mysore High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. N. A. Mandagi. In that case it was held that when a person died and assessment had to be made with respect to his income his estate must be properly represented before the Income-tax Officer and there can be such representation only if all his representatives are served with the notice under section 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It seems to us, however, that the decision of the Mysore High Court had no application to the facts of this case inasmuch as the assessee was alive at the time when the assessment order was made. There is no que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther reference and, therefore, there is no reason why the references should be heard by this court separately. With regard to the contentions of counsel for the respondent that this court has no power under rule 6 of the Rules of this court to extend the time for filing the paper books it seems to us that there is no merit in this contention. Rule 46 of Chapter 38 of the Original Side Rules of this court empowers the court to enlarge or abridge the time appointed by the rule or fix by any order enlarging time for doing any act or taking any proceeding upon such terms as the justice of the case may require. Therefore, in an appropriate case, the court has ample power to enlarge the time for filing the paper books. We must notice, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
