TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are true and correct since no opposition has been filed. The brief facts of this case are as follows : Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are partnership firms. Both at the relevant point of time were registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and also under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 1 while petitioner No. 4 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 3. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are assessees in their capacities as firms so also the respective partners are individually assessed. Petitioner No. 1 procured a contract for construction of a concrete-cum-boulder masonry dam on the river North Koel at Mondal, District Daltonganj, in the State of Bihar. Since the value of the construction wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over both the firms have duly been registered under the Income-tax Act and they were assessed separately and the assessment orders were passed. According to him after the assessment orders were passed for the relevant year 1987-88 in respect of their returns filed by the partners of both the firms it was not open to ask for further returns in respect of the self-same income which has been assessed for payment of tax. Mr. Pal argues that this identical point involved in this application was decided by justice Ms. Pal (as her Lordship then was) on February 8, 1991, in matter being No. 2780 of 1990 (Gouranga Lal Chatterjee v. ITO). He argues that in the aforesaid judgment it has been held amongst other that returns of the income from the joi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points emerge here for adjudication. (i) Whether the aforesaid combination of the two firms intending to set up a joint venture can be termed to be a person within the definition of section 2(31), sub-clause (v), to charge tax under section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the income of the aforesaid combination of the two firms earned through petitioner No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid contract can be subjected to further assessment or not. Mr. Pal tries to convince me that justice Kundu has decided in his Lordship's judgment in W. P. No. 5035 of 1987 (Gouranga Lal Chatterjee v. ITO) that the aforesaid combination of the two partnership firms is not "person" within the definition of section 2(31)(v) of the Income-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be either an association of persons or a body of individuals. The partnership firms are constituted by persons, individuals, namely, human beings or it may be constituted by corporate bodies and/or statutory bodies who are having juristic legal entity. Therefore, I am of the view that the concerned Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice in as much as the addressee, G. L. Chatterjee and Chatterjee Eastern Syndicate is not "person" within the meaning of section 2(31)(v) read with section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision cited by Mr. Som rendered by the Supreme Court in Meera and Co. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 635 is factually distinguishable because in that case after the death of the sole proprietor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
