9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of income for a firm after the death of a partner, whether one assessment for the entire year or two separate assessments for different periods. Analysis: The judgment concerns the assessment of income for a firm following the death of a partner, specifically whether one assessment should be made for the entire year or two separate assessments for different periods. The case involved a firm where a partner died during the accounting year, leading to a dispute over the assessment year 1973-74. The firm filed a single return for the entire assessment year, but the Income-tax Officer only made one assessment for the total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, prompting the firm to appeal to the Tribunal, arguing for two separate assessments due to a change in the firm's constitution. The Tribunal, relying on a previous case, agreed with the firm and directed two separate assessments to be made for the two periods in question. The judgment referred to a Full Bench decision in Vishwanath Seth's case, which held that in cases of firm reconstitution under section 187, the same firm continues and is assessable for the income of the entire previous year. This decision contradicted the view taken by the Tribunal in the present case. The judgment then discussed a Supreme Court case, Wazid Ali Abid Ali's case, where a similar issue arose regarding the constitution of a firm after a partner's death. The Supreme Court upheld the decision that the firm was entitled to the benefit of registration for the part of the previous year where there was no change in the constitution. However, the Supreme Court did not overrule the Full Bench decision in Vishwanath Seth's case, as the issues considered were different. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Full Bench decision in Vishwanath Seth's case remained binding, and therefore, only one assessment for the entire assessment year could be made in cases of a change in the firm's constitution due to a partner's death. The Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to pass an order in accordance with this judgment, rejecting the need for two separate assessments in such circumstances.
|
