1978 (7) TMI 147 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm after the death of a partner or if it was a case of dissolution of the firm.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved a dispute regarding the registration of a firm for the assessment year 1976-77. The firm in question, Prakash Handloom Factory, had four partners, one of whom passed away on 23rd November 1975. The remaining partners contended that the firm was dissolved upon the death of the partner, and a new firm was constituted with the surviving partners. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC) held that there was only a change in the constitution of the firm, not a dissolution. The main issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm or a dissolution.

The counsel for the assessee argued that the firm was dissolved upon the death of the partner, and a new firm was formed with the surviving partners. They submitted that the accounts were settled, and a new firm came into existence from 26th November 1975. The counsel relied on various legal precedents to support their argument that the firm should be granted registration.

The Departmental Representative supported the view that there was a change in the constitution of the firm, not a dissolution, as the remaining partners continued the business after the death of one partner.

The Tribunal analyzed the legal concepts of dissolution and reconstitution of a partnership. It referred to various legal precedents and highlighted that the majority view was that after the death of a partner, a firm comes to an end unless there is a contract to the contrary. The Tribunal concluded that in this case, the firm was dissolved upon the death of the partner, and a new firm was formed. The Tribunal noted that the accounts were settled, separate books were maintained, and profits were distributed according to the profit-sharing ratio for the new firm.

Based on the evidence presented and the legal analysis, the Tribunal held that the firm should be granted registration as claimed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities.