9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of order rejecting revision petition against consolidated assessment for two periods by Income-tax Officer. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner challenged the validity of an order rejecting their revision petition against a consolidated assessment made by the Income-tax Officer for two periods. The issue arose from the reconstitution of a firm where four out of five partners retired, and a new firm was formed with a different composition. The Income-tax Officer made a single assessment for both periods, considering it a reconstitution of the old firm. The respondent upheld this decision, stating that the old firm should be deemed to continue for assessment purposes under section 187(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the retirement of four partners led to the automatic dissolution of the old firm, as one individual cannot constitute a partnership. They contended that the new partnership formed later cannot be a reconstitution of the old firm that legally ceased to exist. The petitioner cited legal precedents supporting the automatic dissolution of a firm when all partners, except one, retire. The court referred to previous decisions emphasizing the distinction between dissolution and reconstitution of a partnership. It highlighted that a new partnership formed after dissolution is not a continuation of the old partnership. The court also noted that section 187 of the Income-tax Act applies to reconstitution under specific provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, not to cases of dissolution followed by the formation of a new entity. In analyzing the case at hand, the court concluded that the retirement of partners led to the dissolution of the old firm before the formation of the new partnership. It emphasized that even a brief interregnum signifies the extinction of the old firm before the new entity's creation. The court rejected the argument that a common partner between the two firms automatically triggers section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, stating that the provision did not apply in this context. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and instructing the Income-tax Officer to conduct separate assessments for the two periods on two distinct entities. The petitioner was awarded costs for the legal proceedings.
|
