2015 (3) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Sri Kailashpat Jhutalal of Kanpur, who died on 27.02.1981. The deceased, during his lifetime was following Diwali Year for the purpose of accounting. In the relevant year, the Diwali ended on 27.10.1981. After death, the respondent has filed two returns in respect of 12 months period commencing from Diwali 1980 to Diwali 1981 pertaining to the deceased. The first return was for the period 07.11.1980 to 27.02.1981, i.e. the date of death of the deceased. This return was for Rs. 93,659/-. The second return was filed for the period 28.02.1981 to 27.10.1981, i.e. from the date of death till Diwali and this return was for Rs. 1,98,125/-. The A.O. opined that two returns cannot be filed. But the assessee has filed two returns separate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccrued and arose to the deceased during his life time and as to what is the income which accrued or arose after the death of the deceased not to him but to the executor and to bring to tax separately the two total incomes (1) u/s 159 and (2) u/s 168 ? 2. Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in taking a contrary view ignoring the ration of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. V. Amarchand Shroff, 48 I.T.R. 59, and C.I.T. Bombay V. Jamesh Anderson 51 I.T.N. 345, which clearly applied to the case of the assessee ?" Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned counsel for the department has justified the order passed by the A.O. and submits that two separate returns could not be filed. As per Sectio....