9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us, is an unregistered firm carrying on business in the supply of stores to the military department on contract. There were two partners, Kallu Mal and J.P. Srivastava, whose shares where equal. The assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1959-60 was completed on September 17, 1960, but before that one of the partners, namely, Kallu Mal, had already been assessed on his share income from the firm. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on September 17, 1960, and one of the grounds raised in the appeal was that partner, Kallu Mal, having already been assessed in respect of the share income from the firm, the Income-tax Officer was not competent again to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as set out above. An answer to the question referred will be found in the clear language of section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section. Section 3 runs as follows : " Charge of income-tax.-Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at any rate or rates tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every individual, Hindu undivided family, company and local authority, and of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually. " The charging section quoted above imposes tax on the total income of six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the partners and again in the hands of the unregistered firm. " As already stated, the charging section contemplates assessment either of the firm or its partners or, if the assessee is an association of persons, assessment may be made on either the association or, in the alternative, on its members. This court was perhaps the first to expound the clear implications of the charging section in respect of the assessment of an association and its members. In the case of Joti Prasad Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer, decided by a Bench of this court in 1958, it was laid down that once the income of an association has been charged to income-tax in the hands of the members individually, and the assessments were valid assessments, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the firm. The decision of the Bombay High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory. Very recently, this court reaffirmed the same principle, which it had already laid down in the case of Joti Prasad Agarwal, in the case of Hari Om Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax, decided by a Bench of which my Lord the Chief Justice was a member. The dictum laid down by this court in Hazari Ram Mohan Ram was misconstrued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It does not lay down the principle that the partners of an unregistered firm and the firm itself are both liable to tax in respect of the income of the firm. Our answer to the question referred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
