9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad : " 1. Whether the assessment of the firm, after the share income had been taxed in the hands of the partners, was valid? 2. Whether the assessment proceedings for the year 1956-57 could be validly initiated against the firm after its dissolution ? " Messrs. Hari Om Company, Kanpur (a dissolved firm), is the assessee. 1956-57 is the assessment year. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the question of assessment went up before the Tribunal upon further appeal, the assessee raised two questions. The first question was that the assessment of the firm was not permissible after separate assessment of the partners in their individual capacity. Secondly, it was urged before the Tribunal that the assessment proceedings for the year 1956-57 could not be validly initiated against the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessment of the firm as such. Mr. Gopal Behari suggested that this case should be disposed of under section 23(5)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal observed in its appellate order : " Taking the first contention, Shri Gulati conceded that if the firm is ultimately registered, the assessee would have no serious grievance. But the department has not accepted the Tribunal's order granting regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation where an unregistered firm has been assessed after the assessment of the partners in individual capacity. In Joti Prasad Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer B-Ward, Mathura, it was held by this court that, once the income of the association was charged to income-tax in the hands of the members individually and the assessments of the members remained valid assessments, there could be no fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on an unregistered firm after some of its partners have already been assessed to tax on their share income from the firm. In view of the decisions of this court, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Jhawar, the first question must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Mr. P. N. Pachauri, appearing for the assessee, did not press the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
