TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ?" The material facts are these. The assessee is a firm, which was originally constituted on January 1, 1968, with four partners and the same was granted registration. On June 30, 1975, one of the partners, Jasumal, expired. A new firm was constituted on July 7, 1975, with effect from July 3, 1975, in which the new partners (sic) of income for the assessment year 1976-77, one for the period from January 1, 1975, to, June 30, 1975, and another for the period from July 3, 197.5, to December 31, 1975. The Income-tax Officer held that it was a case of a change in the constitution of the firm and, therefore, only one assessment was to be made for the entire period from January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1975. The Appellate Assistant Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to frame two assessments as required by section 188 of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, the Revenue applied for a reference to this court under section 256(1) of the Act and the same has been made for answering the above question. At the outset, it may be mentioned that an amendment has been Made in section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by adding a proviso therein with effect from April 1, 1975, as under : " Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) shall apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. " Section 187 provides for change in the constitution of a firm, while section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... armeshwaridas v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 554 (MP), wherein the above amendment, which came into force with effect from April 1, 1975, was noticed and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of the said amendment. It is sufficient to say that the applicability of the newly added proviso to section 187(2) in the present case being an admitted position and the logical consequence thereof being also not in controversy, it is unnecessary to make any such remand in the present case. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this reference is answered against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
