9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, the firm was assessed to income-tax amounting to Rs. 2,879 for the years 1953-54 to 1956-57. The entire tax was demanded from the petitioner, Shri Karam Singh Sobti, who had 60% share whereas Mr. Micheal Overman had a share of 40%. The petitioner represented to the Income-tax Officer that the firm had been dissolved and, hence, the claim for income-tax should be apportioned. On this application the Income-tax Officer wrote to the District Collection Officer, Delhi, that a sum of Rs. 1,735 should be collected from the petitioner and the balance of Rs. 1,155.79 should be collected from the other partner. It was also stated that the petitioner had already paid Rs. 985 and would pay the balance of Rs.750 by November 15, 1959. The District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portionment made by Mr. M. L. Chopra, Income-tax Officer, by his letter dated August 31, 1959 : " Whether the letter dividing the amount can have any legal effect, resulting in the respondent being unable to collect the balance of the tax due from the partnership firm is dependent on whether there was any legal authority investing the Income-tax Officer with the power to limit the liability of a partner in respect of the debts due from the firm." No such power can be pointed out. The liability of a partnership firm with respect to its dues and the liability of any one of the partners for these dues cannot be distinguished. It is a feature of a partnership that the partners are jointly and severally liable for debts due to the partnership. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has referred to Income-tax Officer, Agra v. Radha Krishan decided by the Supreme Court. In that case a partner was held not liable to pay the share of tax due from one of his other partners. That was a case of a registered firm in which the income of each of the individual partners had been assessed. Obviously, it has no application to the facts of the present case. An argument has been sought to be raised before me that the letter of the Income-tax Officer operates as an estoppel against the department, I do not think it does. In any case, this point has not been raised in the writ petition and, therefore, does not require any further elucidation. In my view this petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
