1983 (2) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the ground that the income of the minor son should have been clubbed in the hands of the father (assessee) instead of being clubbed in the hands of the mother Smt. Krishna Kumari. Accordingly, the assessment was reframed on 28th October, 1980. The assessee's contention was that once the minor's income was assessed in the hands of the mother it had to continue to be assessed in her hands and could not be taxed in his own hands. However, this contention was not accepted by the ITO on the ground that under Explanation to s. 64, the income of the minor was includible in the income of that parent whose total income (excluding the income required to be clubbed) was greater. It is also relevant to mention here that against the original assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the sides we find that the delay was for a reasonable and is condoned. 5. In the appeal before us shri V.K. Rostogi the ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All) wherein the view taken is that the entire assessment order of the ITO merges in the order of the AAC in appeal even on point not taken up in appeal or consideration by the AAC and that the CIT cannot thereafter revise the order of the ITO u/s. 263 of the Act. The point raised by Shri Rastogi before us was that in view of the aforesaid decision, which was in existence when the CIT passed the aforesaid order u/s. 263 on 19th Aug 1980 the order of the commissioner was illeg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ince nothing had been pointed out on behalf of the assessee the impugned order of the CIT (A) was entitled to be confirmed. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as also the decisions referred to in their behalf. In our opinion the submissions made on behalf of the revenue have force. Firstly on the question whether even on points not covered by the appeal the order of the assessment merges with the appellate order there is a divergence of opinion between the different High Court and there is no decision of the Supreme Court. In this state of facts it cannot be said that the jurisdiction was not rightly assumed by the CIT u/s. 263 or that his order or the appellate order of the Appellate Tribunal affirming the order u/s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X