Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Damodar Hansraj vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward A on 24 March, 1970

Income-Tax Officer vs M. Govindachari on 30 November, 1984

4. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment suffers even for lack of jurisdiction, though on this point the first appellate authority has decided against him. He claimed that he had not come in appeal or in cross-objection, because he was otherwise satisfied with the relief in respect of quantum granted by the first appellate authority. Since objection against jurisdiction was taken up by him specifically and decided against him, he canvassed the claim that it was open to him to question the jurisdiction even while defending the decision of the first appellate authority. He claimed that once a partition was accepted, it is no longer open to the ITO to go behind the same. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 1TR 416 and the Orissa High Court decision in Damodar Hansraj v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 83. He also claimed that there has been a firm constituted in consequence of partition and that such firm had also been assessed in respect of the self-same income. He was of the view that the partner's assessment should follow the firm and it was not possible for the ITO to ignore the decision taken in the firm's assessment. As for the merits, he contended that the facts are very clear. He took us over the lengthy order of the first appellate authority for the inference that right to archakathvam was property. It was also hereditary property. He depended upon the various cases cited by the ITO himself for his view that it was property. It was heritable property. It was found to be alienable to the other family members. Since it was hereditary property, it was a family property. If it were family property, it was capable of division. Such division has also been recognised. It was also found that it was alienable to family members. It has been so specifically decided in some of the decisions cited by him and referred to by the first appellate authority. Here also, there has been no right conferred on a stranger whether consequent on partition or partnership. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in the departmental appeal, which should be rejected both on the question of jurisdiction as well as merits.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1