| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 140 1966 SLD 140 (1966) 59 ITR 624 |
CASE REFERRED NOS. 47 AND 48 OF 1961, DECEMBER 16, 1964
JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND NARASIMHAM, JJ
C. Kondaiah for the Applicant.W.V.V. Sundara Row for the
Respondent
Roopchand Chandanmal & Co
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 30(1)
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 30(1)
Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Appellate Assistant Commissioner - Appealable orders - Whether an ex partner of a dissolved firm can agitate in appeal before appellate authority any penalty or assessment made against him and by which he is aggrieved - Held, yes FACTS In the instant reference, the issue arose before the High Court was as to whether appeal filed by an ex-partner of dissolved firm before the AAC was competent. HELD Having regard to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in C.A. Abraham v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 425/[1961] 2 SCR 765, which held that penalty and assessment can be made on partners of the firm even after the dissolution of the firm, an ex-partner of a dissolved firm also can, as a consequence of this decision, agitate in appeal any penalty or assessment made against him and by which he was aggrieved. The case was decided in favour of assessee. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Rayalaseema Oil Mills [1959] 37 ITR 208 (FB.) and C.A. Abraham v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 425 (SC). JUDGMENT Jaganmohan Reddy, J.-The question that has been referred to us is: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances…
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