Law:

Section:

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Appellate Tribunal - Appeal to - Assessee was originally assessed as an individual - Assessee had adopted a son, therefore, ITO assessed him as HUF - However assessee claimed that HUF had been disrupted and there was a partnership and accordingly he applied for registration under section 26A - ITO rejected application under section 26A, on appeal, Commissioner allowed registration under section 26A - On appeal to Tribunal it was objected by Department that appeal was filed by HUF and not by assessee, therefore, appeal was not maintainable under section 33 - Whether, on facts, it was an appeal from order of ITO by assessee and, thus, instant appeal by firm was maintainable - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was assessed as individual. He had an adopted son who attained the age of majority. About that time a dispute arose whether he should be assessed as an individual or as HUF consisting of himself and his adopted son. This was atlast decided in his favour by the High Court. Thereafter assessee claimed that the HUF had been disrupted and that instead there was a partnership firm consisting himself and his son. Accordingly, an application was made under section 26A for the registration of the partnership firm. The ITO dismissed this application and proceeded to assess the assessee as a HUF. However on appeal to AAC, he directed the ITO to register the firm, and then proceeded to deal with the case on merits and granted some relief to the assessee. The assessee was not being satisfied with the decision of the AAC on all points and filed an appeal before the Tribunal where the objection taken by department was that an appeal before the Tribunal could only be filed under section 33, by an assessee and since it was a HUF which had been assessed by the ITO no appeal could be filed by the so-called firm to the AAC and also no appeal could be filed by the so-called firm to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal, found that there was no proper appeal either before the AAC or before itself, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. On reference: HELD The hardship…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492