2014 (11) TMI 1302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e above appeals are taken up and heard together. 2. Though served, no one appears for the respondent in all these matters. 3. While admitting the matters on 21.04.2003, the following common substantial question of law was framed :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed an error in construing the provisions of the Explanation - 2 to Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the assessee otherwise than by the uniform application of the maximum marginal rate (including surcharge on income, if any) as contemplated by Explanation-2?" 4. The case in brief is as follows :- The appellant herein is the Commissioner of Inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HD/93 filed by the Department. The said appeal was decided by the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the decision reached by the CIT (A) on the basis of the facts discussed therein. While deciding the present appeal, the ITAT observed that there was no distinguishing features in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A). 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. C.V. Divakaran Family Trust reported in [2002] 122 Taxman 405 (Kerala). Relevant part of the decision reads as under :- "There is no dispute that section 164 is the relevant section under which the assessee has to be assessed. It is the ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r association of persons under the relevant Finance Act. We find that the Calcutta High Court in Surendranath Gangopadhyaya Trust v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 149 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Piarelal Sakseria Family Trust v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 583 have taken a similar view in the matter. In view of our interpretation, the questions have necessarily to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and we do so." Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the authorities below had committed an error by dismissing the appeals. 6. Having heard learned Advocate for the appellant and relying on the decision of the High Court of Kerala, we are of the view that the facts of the case, i.e. Commissioner of Income-ta....