Friday, 18 May 2018

CIT(A) Cannot Dismiss Non E-Filed Appeals + Imp SC Verdict On HUF Law

Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HUF Law): U/s 29-A of the TN Amendment, only daughters of a coparcener who were not married at the time of commencement of the amendment of 1989 are is entitled to claim partition in the Hindu Joint Family Property. Married daughters are not coparceners are are not entitled to institute suit for partition and separate possession (Danamma @ Suman Surpur Vs. Amar 2018 (1) Scale 657 distinguished)    

Any property inherited upto four generations of male lineage from the father, father’s father or father’s father’s father i.e. father, grand father etc., is termed as ancestral property. In other words, property inherited from mother, grandmother, uncle and even brother is not ancestral property. In ancestral property, the right of property accrues to the coparcener on birth. The concept of ancestral property is in existence since time immemorial. In the State of Tamil Nadu, in order to give equal position to the females in ancestral property, in the year 1989, the State Government enacted the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 effective from March 25, 1989 which brought an amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity “the Act”) by adding Section 29-A vide Chapter II-A under the heading of Succession by Survivorship

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules which mandates compulsory e-filing of appeals before the CIT(A) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 is a procedural and technical requirement. It cannot defeat the statutory right of an assessee to file an appeal. An assessee who has filed the appeal in paper format should be permitted to make good the default and to file an appeal electronically

From the facts of the present case, we gathered that the assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however only the e-filing of appeal has not been done by the assessee and according to us, the same is only a technical consideration. The Supreme Court has reiterated that if in a given circumstances, the technical consideration and substantial Justice are pitted against each other, then in that eventuality the cause of substantial Justice deserves to be preferred and cannot be overshadowed or negatived by such technical considerations

No comments: