TMI Blog1981 (8) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il return was filed. The ITO allowed several opportunities to the assessee to indicate whether the income has been disclosed in the hands of the guardians and, if so, where they are assessed. These particulars were not filed by the assessee and, consequently, the ITO assessed the minor on protective basis on the total income of Rs. 48,923; the higher income was taken on the basis of the firm's assessment. No appeal was filed by the assessee and the assessment made by the ITO was accepted. Thereafter, an order under section 154 of the Act was passed on 31-8-1979 by which the mistake in calculation of tax was rectified. A second rectification order was passed on 11-3-1980 by which the mistake in charging interest under section 139(8) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is in appeal and the assessee has filed the cross-objection. 4. Shri S. Mukherjee, the departmental representative, stated the facts of the case and took two objections on the order of the AAC. He stated that the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was posted on 20-2-1979. The assessee did not prefer any appeal and the assessment made by the ITO was accepted by him. The first rectification took place on 31-8-1979. That order was also accepted by the assessee and there was no appeal. The second rectification order was passed on 11-3-1980 by which the interest chargeable under section 139(8) was corrected. The appeal had been filed thereafter. Therefore, the AAC was not competent to hear the appeal against the order passed by the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49 ITR 314. The reply of the counsel on the second argument of the department was that the minor had income, no doubt, but the income was assessable in the hands of the guardian under section 64(1)(iii). The guardian of the minor were assessed in Calcutta and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the ITO and, therefore, the AAC was justified to annul the assessment. 6. The sequence of the case had been narrated by the departmental representative. The assessee, in the present case, is a minor who earned the income of Rs. 44,467 from Vidya Sagar Co., Dhanbad, in which he was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The return showing the nil income was filed on the ground that the income earned by the minor was assessable under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has referred to the decision in Vedantham Raghaviah and has urged that after the second rectification order passed on 11-3-1980, whole assessment was available for appeal. The case referred to by the assessee's counsel had been perused and section 246 had been taken into consideration. The principle of merger did not apply to the whole of the order passed by the ITO under section 143(3). The original order merged with the subsequent order only on the point which is raised in the subsequent order. Other points of the order get finality if they are not rectified. This view is supported by the decision in Rohtak Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 52 (Delhi), Poonjabhai Vanmalidas v. WTO [1978] 114 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
