COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAMLAL MANSUKH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Tribunal, Delhi Bench "c", has referred the following question of law under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was maintainable undef Section 30 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?"

(2.) THE Hindu undivided family was assessed as such till the assessment year 1942-43. The question above-said relates to the assessment year 1943-44, for which the relevant accounting year ended on the 9th of November, 1942 (equivalent to Kartik Sud 1,1999 Bk. ). The Hindu undivided family disrupted on the 9th of November, 1942, and an application under Section 25a of the Act was duly filed. On the 21st of January, 1945, by an order under Section 25a, the partition and the disruption of the family was duly accepted as from the 9th of November, 1942. It deserves notice that from the 10th of November, 1942, a new partnership firm was formed for carrying on the business and an assessment for the year 1943-44 was made on the new unit on the 28th of August 1943. An appeal was preferred against this assessment which was decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 4th of October, 1943.

(3.) THE admitted case is that thereafter neither the department nor the assessee adverted to the admissibility or otherwise of the relief under Section 25 (4) of the Act to the assessee on the succession to the business of the Hindu undivided family. Well nigh 20 years after the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee filed an application under Section 25 (4) or in the alternative, under Section 23 (3) of the Act claiming relief under the above-said provision. This application was rejected on merits by the Income-tax Officer on the 5th of July, 1963. The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who rejected the same primarily on the ground that under Section 30 of the Act, no appeal was provided for against an order under Section 25 (4 ). On further appeal to the Tribunal it was held that an appeal against an order objecting to the amount of income finally assessed under Section 23 was maintainable under Section 30 of the Income-tax Act, and it was consequently directed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should entertain the assessee's appeal and decide the same on merits. On these facts, the reference on the above-mentioned question of law has arisen. Mr. B. S. Gupta on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax has reiterated and commended the reasoning of the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He further placed reliance on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Arunachalam Chettiar, [1953] 23 I. T. R. 180 (S. C.) and Ramaswami Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1956] 30 I. T. R. 281 (Mad. ).