9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding the framing of separate assessment orders for two different periods of a firm due to a change in its constitution.
Summary: The High Court of Allahabad addressed a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 concerning the assessment of a firm, M/s. Omega Sports & Radio Works, after a change in its constitution. The firm had filed two returns for the assessment year 1969, one claiming renewal of registration and the other fresh registration. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made one assessment for the entire year, allocating income among partners for the respective periods. The assessee sought separate assessments for the two periods through an application under s. 154 of the Act, which was initially rejected by the ITO but later directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). The matter was taken to the I.T. Appellate Tribunal by the department, arguing against the applicability of s. 154 due to debatable nature of the issue and citing divergence in views among different High Courts. The Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court, questioning the applicability of s. 154 in the case. The High Court noted that as per previous decisions, separate assessments should have been made for the two periods due to the change in firm's constitution. The department contended that the issue was debatable, considering differing views among High Courts. However, the High Court emphasized that decisions of the Allahabad High Court were binding in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the ITO was obligated to follow the established law. The Court highlighted that the I.T. authorities within a particular High Court's jurisdiction are bound by its decisions, even if there are conflicting views in other courts. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the mistake in not framing separate assessments was apparent on the record and could be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. The Court rejected the department's argument regarding the debatable nature of the issue and awarded costs to the assessee.
|
