TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm was, not dissolved on April 12, 1974 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had any material to hold that the capital gains was assessable in the hands of the applicant-firm and not in the hands of the individual partners ? " The petitioner-firm consisted of four partners. The firm was constituted as per deed dated January 14, 1970. It had constructed a building on the properties belonging to it in M. P. Road, Calicut, and was running M/s. Sri Hari Lodge there. One of the partners of M/s. Sri Hari Lodge sold his share in the assets of the firm on April 8, 1974, to M/s. Y. M. Andru Haji and four others. On April 17, 1974, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer of the properties to the Bombay firm only after the execution of the release deed by the three partners on April 17, 1974, and that in this case, the plea of the assessee that there was a dissolution of the firm on April 12, 1974, is unacceptable. The firm can be taken to have been dissolved only on June 24, 1974. The petitioner (assessee) filed an application under section 255( 1) of the Income-tax Act before the Appellate Tribunal, praying that certain questions of law, arising out of the appellate order of the Tribunal, may be referred to this court. It was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal by order dated February 18, 1984. Thereafter, the assessee (petitioner-firm) has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Incometax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transferee only after the execution of the release deed. If so, the transfer effected could only be by the firm. The Appellate Tribunal by reference to various facts and, in particular, the deed of dissolution dated June 24, 1974, and other evidence and circumstances in the case found that the plea of the assessee, that the firm had been dissolved on April 12, 1974, is absolutely untenable. The detailed reasons given in paragraphs 8A and 9 of the appellate order demonstrate that the firm was not and could not have been dissolved on April 12, 1974. In our opinion, no referable question of law, as specified in paragraph 4 of the original petition, arises in this case. We decline to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
