9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the firm was liable to be assessed for profits from January 1, 1972, to October 15, 1972, under section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the business of the firm was succeeded by the company, and if so, was the firm assessable till it was succeeded by the company? Analysis: 1. The case involved a situation where a firm, initially comprising three partners, admitted four new partners in August 1972, increasing the total to seven partners. The firm conducted a business involving the purchase and sale of various vehicles and related products. Subsequently, on October 16, 1972, the firm was converted into a company as per a deed of copartnery. The assessing authority contended that the firm's income from January 1, 1972, to November 25, 1972, should be taxed in the hands of the firm before being transferred to the company. The Tribunal agreed that the firm was liable to be assessed for profits until October 16, 1972, when it was succeeded by the company. 2. The key issue revolved around whether there was a succession of business from the firm to the company, as per section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Tribunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed that there was indeed a succession, citing the case law of CIT v. A. W. Figgies and Co. The Supreme Court in the mentioned case held that when a firm is converted into a company, the business of the firm is succeeded by the company. Section 170(1) of the Act stipulates that the predecessor shall be assessed up to the date of succession, and the successor shall be assessed thereafter. The court rejected the argument that profits could not be assessed in the hands of the company before the firm's accounts were closed, stating that regular maintenance of account books allows for profit ascertainment without the need for account closure. In conclusion, the court answered both parts of the question in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and holding the firm liable to be assessed for profits until it was succeeded by the company. The judgment emphasized the legal provisions under section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the precedent set by relevant case law regarding business succession from a firm to a company.
|
