9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of income-tax and excess profits tax assessments made on a dissolved firm. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, regarding the validity of income-tax and excess profits tax assessments made on a dissolved firm, Messrs. Nagarmal Baijnath. The firm was dissolved in 1946, with the partnership closed on 25th October, 1946, and business ended on 21st April, 1947. The assessments in question were for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48, with corresponding previous years being S.Y. 2001-2002 and S.Y. 2002-2003, as well as for chargeable accounting periods ending November 4, 1945, and March 31, 1946. The primary issue revolved around whether the assessments on the dissolved firm were validly made. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise additional legal objections challenging the validity of the assessments. The Tribunal, however, ultimately ruled against the assessee, citing precedents such as C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer and Ramniwas Hanumanbux Somani v. S. Venkatraman. The Tribunal held that notice of reassessment could be issued against the firm even after dissolution, as per section 44 of the Income-tax Act. The High Court considered the Gujarat High Court's dissenting view but followed the Bombay High Court's decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devidayal and Sons and Laxmidas and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. These cases affirmed that assessments on a dissolved firm could be made under section 44 of the Income-tax Act, treating the firm as continuing for pre-dissolution income assessment purposes. Consequently, the High Court upheld the validity of the assessments made on the dissolved firm, ruling against the assessee and directing them to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
|
