TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll-settled that a decree or order passed in a suit in which the parties do not contest or is passed ex parte is binding upon the parties in the same manner as a decree or order passed after contest unless it is set aside or modified in appeal or revision by a competent court of law. - In view of the above discussions, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 11-4-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., RAJES KUMAR. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his claim he has placed reliance on the order of the 8th Civil Judge, Meerut, dated February 9, 1989. According to the respondent, he had acquired bhoomidari right in the said land after the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act was made applicable to the concerned area. He had become joint owner of the bhoomidari right as one single unit as a son Shri J.K. Chauhan was born in September, 1947, which was prior to July 1,1952, the date on which the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act was made applicable and another son was born on July 1, 1952. A family settlement took place in the year 1978, in which each of the sons of the respondent was given a 1/5th share. A declaratory suit was also filed by Sri J.K. Chauhan, which was decreed on February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuary 9, 1988 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut. It was on these facts that the Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, vide his order dated February 9, 1989, had decided that the assessee had only 1/5th share. The above said facts are available from the statement of facts as submitted by the assessee. In the absence of the order of the Civil Judge, I have no other alternative but to remand the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the same. In case the order clearly spells out that the assessee had only 1/5th share in the property then the income from the said property that would be included in the hands of the assessee is also only to the extent of 1/5th. Further, where the co-owners had not challenged the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
