TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to this court is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 16-12-2003 - Judge(s) : M. KATJU., UMESHWAR PANDEY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M.KATJU J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an unregistered firm and the relevant assessment year i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady been made there was no justification in law for making the assessment on the firm in respect of the same income which has been assessed in the hands of the partners. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim and his order was upheld by the Tribunal which dismissed the claim following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rodamal Lalchand v. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in this way the partners have to pay less tax when the firm is registered under section 185 because the slab on their individual income goes down and thus the total income-tax payable also goes down. However, when the firm is unregistered higher tax has to be paid because the income of the firm is not divided among the partners and hence the income tax slab is at a higher rate. In our opinion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment on two persons in respect of the same income where it is doubtful which assessee is really liable to charge, because unless such protective assessment is made, assessment proceedings against the party ultimately found to be liable may become time-barred vide Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC); Sidh Gopal Gajanand v. ITO [1969] 73 ITR 226 (All); Sunil Kumar v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relied upon by the assessee before the Tribunal and the authorities, i.e., CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) and CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Puma Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 (SC), on the reasoning that these cases were rendered under the Act of 1922.On the other hand, their Lordships approved the law laid down by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
