Appellate bar on unraised partition plea under income-tax procedure; claim had to be raised before the assessing officer first.

A partition claim concerning a Hindu joint family had to be raised before the Income-tax Officer under the special assessment procedure, and could not be introduced for the first time in appeal. The appellate scheme under the Income-tax Act did not permit the assessee to bypass the prescribed statutory process by raising a matter that should have been determined at the assessment stage. The Assistant Commissioner was therefore not bound to entertain or adjudicate the partition plea, and was right to refuse to decide it. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plea that the Hindu joint family had been dissolved by partition, not raised before the Income-tax Officer, could be raised for the first time in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner; (ii) Whether the Assistant Commissioner was bound to adjudicate the partition claim or was barred from entertaining it.

Issue (i): Whether a plea that the Hindu joint family had been dissolved by partition, not raised before the Income-tax Officer, could be raised for the first time in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The claim of partition was one which, under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, had to be placed before the Income-tax Officer under the special procedure for a Hindu undivided family. If that objection was not taken at the assessment stage, the assessee could not use the appellate stage to introduce a matter which ought to have been decided by the assessing authority in the first instance. The appellate jurisdiction under the Act could not be invoked to bypass the specific statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The plea could not be raised for the first time in appeal, and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assistant Commissioner was bound to adjudicate the partition claim or was barred from entertaining it.

Analysis: The statutory provisions governing assessment and appeal did not permit the Assistant Commissioner to decide a question that should have been raised and determined under the provision dealing with partition of a Hindu family. Section 30(1) confined the appellate remedy to the statutory framework and therefore barred the appellate authority from entertaining the plea when no objection had been made before the Income-tax Officer. The refusal to adjudicate was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner was barred from entertaining the plea and was right in refusing to decide it, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, holding that the partition plea was procedurally barred at the appellate stage and could not be entertained by the Assistant Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority cannot entertain a plea that the Act requires to be raised and determined before the assessing officer in the first instance, where the appellate scheme itself bars such circumvention of the prescribed procedure.

---