TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on March 31, 1978, was includible in the assessment of the applicant for the assessment year 1978-79 though the previous year of the firm ended on March 31, 1978, and that of the applicant ended on December 31, 1977, instead of the share income from Kadamane Estate Company, for the year ended March 31, 1977 ? " The assessee is a private limited company which is a partner in a registered firm, Kadamane Estates Co. The partnership which owns tea plantations closed its accounts on March 31, each year. The previous year followed by the assessee-company for its business ended on December 31, each year. According to the assessee, for the purpose of accounting the income from the partnership business the previous year should be taken as the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (f) where the assessee is a partner in a firm and the firm has been assessed as such, then, in respect of the assessee's share in the income of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm. " On going through the provisions contained under section 3 as above we are inclined to accept the contention taken by the Revenue that clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3 is the relevant provision applicable in this case. In CIT v. M. S. Sheik Rowther [1962] 46 ITR 259, this court considered a case coming under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 2(11)(ii) of the 1922 Act contained a provision in pari materia with clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the facts of the present case the period ended on March 31, 1978, and not on a day beyond March 31, 1978. Therefore, the income from the partnership has necessarily to be assessed in the year 1978-79 itself. The principle laid down by this court in CIT v. M. S. Sheik Rowther [1962] 46 ITR 259 has been understood in the same manner by the High Court of Calcutta in Biswanath Goenka v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 687, and also by the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Mc Kenzies Ltd. [1980] 121 ITR 458. We do not find that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had considered the real effect of clause (f) of section 3(1) as it was considered by the High Court of Bombay or Calcutta, nor was there a consideration of the decision of this court in CIT v. M. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
