Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nathulal Gangaram Soni - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/508934
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-03-2003
Case NumberIT Appeal No. 44 of 2003
JudgeDeepak Verma and ;S.K. Seth, JJ.
Reported in(2004)186CTR(MP)418
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 260A and 171(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentNathulal Gangaram Soni
Advocates:R.L. Jain, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh municipal corporation act (23 of 1956)section 91 & m.p. municipal corporation act (1956), section 307(5): [a.k. patnaik, c.j., a.m. sapre & s.k.seth, jj] public nuisance - suit for injunction - held, section 91(i) of the c.p.c. is not exhaustive of the remedies that are available to a party even in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public. the remedy of the corporation and any other person under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of section 91 of the c.p.c. and not only the corporation but any other person can apply to the district court for injunction or removal or alteration of a building on the ground that the provisions of the act of 1956 or the bye-laws made.....1. r.l. jain, learned counsel for the revenue.2. he is heard on the question of admission.3. this appeal has been preferred against the order dt. 3rd dec., 2002, passed by tribunal, indore in ita no. 257/ind/1997.4. after going through the impugned order, we find that the tribunal has recorded a finding that the interest income earned by the smaller huf could not have been assessed in the hands of bigger huf, as the same is not permissible as per the law.5. undisputedly, the respondent has been accepted as a smaller huf, in view of the partition of the bigger huf of nathuram which has been recognized under section 171(1) of the it act, 1961, by the department itself.6. in view of the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal allowed the appeal. the findings recorded by.....
Judgment:

1. R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the Revenue.

2. He is heard on the question of admission.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the order dt. 3rd Dec., 2002, passed by Tribunal, Indore in ITA No. 257/Ind/1997.

4. After going through the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the interest income earned by the smaller HUF could not have been assessed in the hands of bigger HUF, as the same is not permissible as per the law.

5. Undisputedly, the respondent has been accepted as a smaller HUF, in view of the partition of the bigger HUF of Nathuram which has been recognized under Section 171(1) of the IT Act, 1961, by the Department itself.

6. In view of the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are factual in nature and do not involve any substantial question of law. Thus, the appeal being devoid of any substance merits dismissal without any orders as to costs.