TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (3) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 21-3-1985 on the assessee in the status of a registered firm. The accounting period adopted was the financial year 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1982. The income as computed was Rs. 10,58,070 against income returned of Rs. 46,966. The main additions both under the head 'Other Sources' was (a) investment of Rs. 11,100 and income outside the books computed at Rs. 10,00,000. This income outside the books was computed consequent to a comparison made by the ITO between entries in certain documents which were obtained during a search on 20-10-1982, and the accounts as maintained by the assessee. The income computed was allocated amongst seven partners. The partners and their shares were as under : 1. B.K.N.Kannan 25% 2. B.K.N. Rajaram 12 1/2% 3. B.K. Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order in ITA No.31/85/-86/TRY dated 23-3-1987 the assessment stood set aside. 6. The CIT (Appeals), Madurai embarked upon examination whether he had jurisdiction to hear the appeal or not, and if he had, what orders he could pass. He referred to the judicial pronouncements in CIT v. Babu Ram Chandra Bhan [1969] 74 ITR 143 (All.) and CIT v. General Textiles [1978] 111 ITR 727 (Cal.) and came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal because any partner who is aggrieved could file a valid appeal under the provisions of section 247. 7. Thereafter he proceeded to examine whether when the assessment order for the asst. year 1982-83 had already been set aside by one CIT(Appeals) on an appeal filed by one of the partner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. For the present we leave the matters for the assessment year 1982-83 and go to the assessment year 1983-84. 11. For the assessment year 1983-84, there was, according to the assessee, a change in the constitution from 14-11-1982 when the Rajaram group went out of the firm. Therefore the plea in brief was that if any income was to be apportioned between the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, which was not accounted for, the period of apportionment should start on 1-4-1981 and should end on 14-11-1982. Thereafter if there was any extra income or for that matter any income earned by the firm, the Kannan group alone would have to bear the liability. 12. The counsel for the assessee had taken a plea before the CIT(Appeals), Madurai that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciples on this point, this can be resolved very simply. Just as the CIT(Appeals), Madurai held, and correctly so, that a valid appeal could be preferred to him by any partner of the firm, the CIT(Appeals)-V, Madras had also a valid appeal before him. On a valid appeal he passed a valid appellate order. As we have already stated, he was unaware of the appeal pending before the CIT(Appeals), Madurai. Be that as it may, he passed a valid appellate order setting aside the assessment. When that order was not contested by either the appellant before him or by the revenue, that order attained a certain degree of finality. When the CIT(Appeals), Madurai came to take up the appeal filed by the Rajaram group in 1988, there was no assessment order on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer is making to give effect to that order, has to be passed before the limitation for passing such order which expires on 31-3-1990. The period left is short. We have dictated this order in the open court. This is to enable the Assessing Officer to straightaway take the order so that as adequate an opportunity as is still possible is not denied to the assessee. 20. Coming to the assessment year 1983-84, the basis adopted by the ITO was to equally apportion excess balances and consider whether there was any income or not. The finding for the assessment year 1982-83 will have a definite bearing on the assessment for the year 1983-84 also. Apart from this, the claim that one of the groups had gone out from 14-11-1982 would also have to ....