TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by AO as null and void - 389 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2007 - M. M. KUMAR and AJAY KUMAR MITTAL JJ. Yogesh Putney for the appellant. Rakesh Gupta for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M. M. Kumar J.- The Revenue has approached this court by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act") and has challenged the order dated September 29, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench A, Delhi, passed in ITA No. 200/Del/04 for the assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue has claimed that the following substantial question of law would arise : "Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to Rs. 61,96,375 as per the claim made by the assessee. However, the deduction was not allowable to the assessee in the status of HUF. The assessee felt aggrieved with the assessment order and challenged the same before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for brevity "the CIT(A)"). The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the status of the assessee as "HUF" as against "individual". 4. On further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was null and void because notice dated January 12, 2004, issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act was without intimating his statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal has also referred to the reasons recorded for issuance of notice which led to the conclusion that the notices were issued by treating the assessee as "individual". The return under section 148 of the Act was also filed in the status of "individual". In the teeth of the aforementioned finding necessary legal consequences are bound to follow, namely, that once a notice under section 148 and other sections were issued by treating the assessee as individual then the Assessing Officer could not have framed the assessment by treating the income in the hands of HUF. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607. Therefore, we do not find that any q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
