9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the case involved the dissolution of a firm or the expulsion of a partner? 2. Whether the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Analysis: The case involved a partnership firm, M/s. Eclat Auto Agency, with five partners, including a minor. One partner, Charanjit Lal, initially retired but later rejoined the firm. Disputes arose when he failed to contribute his promised capital, leading to a notice of dissolution sent by another partner, Paras Prabhu Aggarwal, citing non-payment of capital. Charanjit Lal contested this in court, claiming he had retired and severed ties with the firm. The remaining partners executed a new partnership deed and continued the business, seeking registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the registration application, deeming Charanjit Lal's expulsion invalid under the Partnership Act. However, the Appellate Authority (AAC) overturned this decision, ruling it as a dissolution under section 43 of the Partnership Act due to the notice given by Paras Prabhu Aggarwal. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the notice effectively dissolved the firm, paving the way for the new partnership to operate lawfully. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the notice of dissolution satisfied the requirements of section 43 of the Partnership Act. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the notice was not sent to all partners, noting that both the AAC and Tribunal had confirmed its distribution to all partners. Consequently, the High Court upheld the dissolution of the firm and granted registration to the new partnership, ruling in favor of the assessee and ordering costs to be paid by the revenue.
|
