9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether Section 187 authorizes a single assessment for the entire accounting year or necessitates separate assessments before and after the reconstitution of the firm. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The primary question was whether Section 187 of the I.T. Act, 1961, applies when there is a change in the constitution of a partnership firm during an accounting year preceding an assessment year. The court examined the facts where one partner exited and two new partners joined the firm on June 12, 1970, leading to a reconstitution of the firm. The court concluded that this scenario falls squarely under Section 187(2) of the Act, which defines a "change in the constitution of the firm" as occurring when one or more partners cease to be partners or new partners are admitted while some of the original partners continue. Issue 2: Authorization of Single or Separate Assessments under Section 187 The second contention was whether Section 187 mandates a single assessment for the entire accounting year or requires separate assessments for the periods before and after the reconstitution of the firm. The court referred to the language of Sections 187 and 188, emphasizing that Section 187(1) requires the assessment to be made on the reconstituted firm as it exists at the time of making the assessment. The court rejected the argument that Section 187(1) only makes the reconstituted firm liable for the tax of the firm before its reconstitution without authorizing the clubbing of incomes. The court relied on the precedent set by Karupukula Suryanarayana Shetty and Sons v. CIT, which held that in cases of reconstitution, the assessment should be made on the firm as reconstituted at the time of making the assessment, and Section 188 does not apply. The court also discussed the conflicting view of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath but upheld the interpretation that Section 187 treats the reconstituted firm as the same entity for assessment purposes, aimed at preventing tax evasion through mid-year reconstitutions. The court further clarified that Section 187(1) does not imply the need for two separate assessments but mandates a single assessment on the reconstituted firm for the entire accounting year. The proviso to Section 187(1) allows for the apportionment of income among partners for the previous year, ensuring no difficulty in apportioning income between the partners before and after reconstitution. Conclusion The court concluded that in the case of a change in the constitution of a partnership firm during an accounting year, Section 187(1) of the I.T. Act requires a single assessment on the reconstituted firm for the entire year, not separate assessments for the periods before and after reconstitution. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the Income-tax Officer's single assessment for the period from April 1, 1970, to March 31, 1971, was justified. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the revenue, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250.
|
