TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inable under the law. In view of the above facts, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable. - I.T.A. No. 1128/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 22.01.2015 for the assessment year 2002-03. The only issue raised in the appeal of the assessee is with regard to confirmation of order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AFKPM6731M for the assessment year 2002- 03 by declaring total income of the assessee at ₹.4,96,375/-. For the same assessment year 2002-03, the assessee in the status of HUF filed return of income declaring total income at ₹.37,60,007/-, which comprised of ₹.1,40,463/- representing income shown under the head Other Sources and long term capital gains of ₹.36,31,216/- without giving PAN, as it was just applied for and the PAN was not yet allotted as on the date of filing the return. While scrutinizing the return of income of the HUF status and, while issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, since the column Status was kept blank, by oversight, the PAN of Individual AFKPM6731M was put and notice was serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atus of HUF. Whereas the Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s 148 in the name of the individual. And while finalising the assessment proceedings, he had not however taken cognisance of the return filed by the appellant in the status of the individual in which a total income of the ₹ 4,96,375/- had been shown. He had proceeded to compute the taxable income on the basis of the return filed in the status of HUF only. There is no reason attributed anywhere in the impugned order for doing so. However, it has to be noted that the assessee has not raised the issue of status before the ld. CIT(A). 5. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 11.06.2008, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1987/Mds/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
