9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether two separate assessments should be made for a firm, one for the period prior to a change in its constitution and another for the period after the change? Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment of a registered firm for two different periods based on a change in its constitution. The firm's previous year ended on October 24, 1974, and on March 31, 1974, two partners retired, leading to the reconstitution of the firm with the remaining partners and additional minors. The firm claimed that this change constituted the dissolution of the old partnership and the formation of a new one, warranting separate assessments for the two periods. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected this claim and made a single assessment for both periods, a decision upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The matter was then taken to the Appellate Tribunal, which, considering previous judgments, including CIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath and Badri Narain Kashi Prasad, ruled in favor of the firm, directing two separate assessments. However, the High Court noted that the law laid down in these cases had been overruled by a Full Bench decision in Vishwanath Seth v. CIT. The court also rejected the argument that the Full Bench decision had been disapproved by a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that the Full Bench decision remained valid and binding. Based on the precedents set by previous cases like CIT v. Basant Behari Gopal Behari and Co. and Indralok Picture Palace, the High Court held that the Full Bench decision in Vishwanath Seth's case still stood as good law. Consequently, the court ruled that only one assessment should be made for the firm after its reconstitution, dismissing the Tribunal's direction for two separate assessments. The court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue and rejecting the assessee's claim for separate assessments. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified that in cases of firm reconstitution, only one assessment should be conducted for the firm as it stood at the end of the year, rejecting the need for separate assessments for different periods. The court directed the records to be sent back to the Appellate Tribunal for further action in line with the High Court's decision.
|
