2009 (6) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1409 of 2009 filed in both these appeals delay of 526 days in filing the appeals in condoned. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Civil Applications Nos.1408 and 1409 of 2009 are allowed. 3. These two appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No.1685/BNG/1988 and Income-tax Appeal No.1773/Bang/1988 dated March 12, 2007, framing the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have held that the provisions of section 161 (1A) were inapplicable while giving effect to the earlier order dated November 8, 2006, of the High Court of Karnataka?" 4. In support of the same urged the grounds and requested th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 should be made in the hands of the beneficiaries and not in the status of an AOP?" 7. This court in exercise of its power after examining the decision of this court in the case reported in CIT v. K. Shyamaraju (Trustees) [1991] 189 ITR 392, in support of the proposition of law held that the assessment should not be made in the status of an AOP and the assessment must be made only in the hands of the beneficiaries in the case on hand. This court on the basis of the statements of cases drawn by the Tribunal both the questions were answered against the Revenue holding that both the questions of law referred to above are co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the assessee before the apex court by filing special leave petition to S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8294 of 2007. The said order was not interfered with by the apex court, vide its order dated December 12, 2007, as the apex court dismissed the special leave petition. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the special leave petition are dismissed the facts of the case in relation to the assessment years in question was required to be considered by the Tribunal in the appeals. That has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the question of law framed by the appellant in both-these appeals arise for consideration and answered in favour of the assessee. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the details reg....