TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 143(1) in pursuance of the scheme to help new taxpayers in small income groups launched by the Government ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly cancelled the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in maintaining the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by which he has deleted the addition of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 1,700 ?" The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from sale of medicine on retail basis. The books of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan from her. It was, therefore, treated as income of the firm. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could hear the present assessee's appeal, the appeal filed by Zaibunnisa before the Tribunal, ITA No. 196 of 1975-76, was allowed. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax cancelling the assessment of Zaibunnisa was set aside by the Tribunal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, disposed of the appeal of the assessee taking into account the fact that the claim of Zaibunnisa of being possessed of her own capital of Rs. 15,000 having been sustained by the Tribunal, the case of the assessee's cash advance was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Board of Direct Taxes. The reference in the matter of CIT v. Bibi' Zaibunnisa (T. C. No. 323 of 1980 [1990] 185 ITR 284) was disposed of by this court on August 21, 1989. This court did not agree with the views of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It was held therein relying upon a series of decisions of this court in CIT v. Smt. Pushpa Devi [1988] 173 ITR 445, CIT v. Pushpa Devi' [1987] 164 ITR 639 and CIT v. Rambha Devi [1987] 164 ITR 658, that the scheme did not apply to ladies and minors. Since the claim of the assessee of cash advance from Zaibunnisa rested upon the fact that Zaibunnisa had her own capital and since the assessment in that behalf has been held to be invalid by this court, the case of the present assessee als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
