9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining whether two separate assessments should be made for different periods following a change in the constitution of a firm for the assessment year 1976-77. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, addressing the question of whether two separate assessments should be conducted for the assessment year 1976-77 due to a change in the constitution of a firm. The dispute arose when two minors admitted to the benefits of partnership retired from the firm on September 30, 1975, and a new deed of partnership was executed with the remaining partners and another individual from October 1, 1975. The assessee contended that two separate assessments were necessary for the periods before and after the reconstitution, filing two sets of returns and separate accounts. However, the Income-tax Officer made one assessment, considering it a mere change in the firm's constitution. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessee's claim based on precedent and directed two separate assessments. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed this decision, leading to the reference to the High Court. The court analyzed section 187 of the Act, which mandates that assessments be made based on the firm's constitution at the time of assessment if a change occurs. It highlighted that when partners retire, and the business continues with remaining partners, the provision applies. Referring to past judgments, the court noted conflicting views on whether a reconstituted firm should be assessed separately for pre and post-change periods or as a single entity for the entire previous year. It clarified that the correct legal position, as per a larger Full Bench decision, is to assess the reconstituted firm for the entire previous year's income as a single entity, clubbing income from both periods. The court dismissed the argument that the case was one of succession rather than reconstitution, emphasizing that the plea was not raised before the Tribunal. It reiterated that the Tribunal's consideration was based on whether two separate assessments were warranted due to the reconstitution under section 187(2). Ultimately, the court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue and rejecting the assessee's claim for two separate assessments. No order as to costs was issued in the judgment.
|
