9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax Act, 1961 (the Income-tax Act), for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions, said to be of law, for the opinion of this court: " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 978, in which property worth Rs. 49,693 was allotted to the smaller Hindu undivided family of Maganal and Indirabai and property worth Rs. 44,951 was allotted to the smaller Hindu undivided family of Indirabai and minor son, Amit. The said partition was recognised by the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Income-tax Act. Maganlal Panchmatiya had and has individual income also which is ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that there was no referable question of law involved. Now, the partial partition dated October 31, 1978, has been recognised under section 171 of the Income-tax Act and the said order has become final. The effect of such an order has been summed up thus by the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416 while dealing with a pari materia section 25A( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. " Under the circumstances, it was impermissible for the Commissioner of Income-tax to go behind the order passed under section 171 of the Income-tax Act. Even if the partial partition is ignored and treated as nonest, income derived from the property of the larger Hindu undivided family could not be added in the individual income of Maganlal. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
