9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether there should be two separate assessments for two separate periods or one assessment for the whole period. 2. Whether the firm was dissolved or there was a mere change in its constitution. Analysis: 1. The appeal revolved around whether two separate assessments should be made for distinct periods or a composite assessment for the entire period. The firm had filed separate returns for two periods following the death of a partner and the subsequent change in the partnership. The Assessing Officer had clubbed the income for both periods, leading to the appeal by the revenue. 2. The key contention was whether the firm was dissolved or there was a mere change in its constitution due to the death of a partner and subsequent reconstitution of the partnership. The revenue argued that the surviving partners' conduct indicated the firm was not dissolved, relying on a High Court decision. However, the assessee contended that the firm automatically dissolved upon the partner's death as per the amended law and absence of a clause in the partnership deed for continuation after a partner's death. 3. The Tribunal examined past judgments, including the jurisdictional High Court's decision and a Supreme Court ruling, to determine the legal implications of the firm's dissolution upon a partner's death. It was highlighted that the Supreme Court disapproved a Full Bench decision that aligned with the jurisdictional High Court's stance, implying a change in legal interpretation. 4. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a clause in the partnership deed for the firm's continuation after a partner's death led to automatic dissolution as per the amended law. Citing relevant case laws and the proviso to section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal affirmed that the firm's dissolution upon the partner's death necessitated separate assessments for distinct periods. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to direct two separate assessments for the distinct periods, rejecting the revenue's appeal. The judgment clarified that the proviso to section 187(2) mandates dissolution of the firm upon a partner's death in the absence of a contrary contract, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
|
