9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of AAC to entertain and decide the appeal. 2. Legality of treating the firm as registered for part of the year and unregistered for the remaining part. 3. Validity of the declaration under Form No. 12 and the requirement of Form No. 11A. 4. Determination of the firm's status after the death of a partner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of AAC to entertain and decide the appeal: The Revenue contended that the AAC erred in entertaining and deciding the appeal against a non-existent order under Section 185 of the IT Act, 1961, as the assessment was framed under Section 143(3). The AAC's decision was challenged on the grounds that the appeal was not against the assessment but on the subject matter of registration, which arose from the ITO's order under Section 143(3). The Tribunal held that the ITO's order, framed under Section 143(3), included the determination of the firm's status as an unregistered firm. Since the status was an integral part of the assessment order, the appeal to the AAC under Section 246(c) was competent. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 246(c) allows an appeal against the status under which the assessee has been assessed, thus validating the AAC's jurisdiction. 2. Legality of treating the firm as registered for part of the year and unregistered for the remaining part: The Revenue argued that the AAC erred in directing the ITO to allow continuation of registration for part of the year and to treat the firm as unregistered for the remaining part. They contended that the firm should be considered as it stood on the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year, and there was no new instrument of partnership. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the firm was constituted by two partners, and with the death of one partner on 23rd Feb. 1975, the firm stood dissolved by operation of law. The introduction of a new partner did not amount to a change in the constitution of the firm but constituted a new firm. Therefore, the AAC correctly directed the ITO to allow continuation of registration up to the death of the partner and treat the firm as unregistered thereafter. 3. Validity of the declaration under Form No. 12 and the requirement of Form No. 11A: The Revenue contended that the AAC erred in law by not recognizing that Form No. 12 was ineffective due to the change in the constitution of the partnership, and since Form No. 11A was not filed, continuation of registration could not be allowed. The Tribunal found that the firm came to an end with the death of one of the partners, and there was no firm in existence on 24th Feb. 1975. Therefore, the requirement of filing Form No. 11A was not applicable as there was no change in the constitution but rather the formation of a new firm. The AAC's decision to allow continuation of registration up to 23rd Feb. 1975 was upheld. 4. Determination of the firm's status after the death of a partner: The Tribunal observed that with the death of one of the two partners, the firm automatically came to an end by operation of law. The surviving partner and the new partner could not constitute a continuation of the old firm but formed a new entity. Thus, the firm was entitled to the benefits of continuation of registration up to the date of the partner's death, and for the remaining period, it was correctly treated as an unregistered firm. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, which held that the firm comes to an end with the death of one of the two partners, and there cannot be any change in the constitution of the firm thereafter. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the AAC's decision to allow continuation of registration for the period up to the death of the partner and treating the firm as unregistered for the remaining period. The AAC's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal was affirmed, and the necessity of Form No. 11A was deemed irrelevant due to the dissolution of the firm by operation of law.
|
