9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has been accepted on merits, the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof to be raised ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in order to go into the question of jurisdiction, the authorities below will have to find out facts in coming to the conclusion one way or the other and thereby not going into that question ? 3. That in the face of the finding of the Tribunal that the full material on the question of jurisdiction is not available on the record, whether the Tribunal was bound to hold that conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undivided family in respect of the incomes from house property, share from firm, M/s. Kundanmal Jabarchand Umed and self business at jodhpur. Notices under section 147(a) of the Act were issued by the Income-tax Officer, C-ward, Jodhpur, to club the incomes arising to the assessee from the said sources at Beawar treating them as the income of the Hindu undivided family at jodhpur. The assessee filed returns, under protest, in the status of a Hindu undivided family. During the reassessment proceedings, he objected to the proceedings on the ground that the notices were void as there was no concealment of any income on his part and contended that he was being assessed at Beawar as an individual and at jodhpur as the karta of a Hindu undivided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Assistant Commissioner. The learned Tribunal has discussed this point in para. No. 7 of its order dated December 29, 1973. It would be best to quote it here. It runs as under: "The appeals were heard by the Tribunal on September 26, 1973. The case could not be completed and as such it was adjourned to September 28, 1973. On September 26, 1973, the assessee did not raise any additional plea before the Tribunal and also did not inform the Tribunal that he, wants to raise any additional pleas. On September 28, 1973, learned counsel for the assessee raised an additional plea and also filed an application stating the grounds. In the application, the date was wrongly shown as September 26, 1973. This application was moved on 28th Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the assessee. Admittedly, the said point of jurisdiction was duly raised before the learned Tribunal by learned counsel for the assessee before the close of his arguments. Even an application was moved by him at that time. Rule 27, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, provides that the respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. Thus, the assessee was entitled to support the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for not clubbing the said two incomes on the said ground of lack of jurisdiction. The assessee could submit his arguments and raise the said pleas only after the conclusion of the arguments of the learned representative for the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
