9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the amended provisions of section 187(2) apply to a case involving a change in the constitution of a firm due to the death of a partner. 2. Whether the dissolution of a firm occurred on the death of a partner according to the partnership deed. 3. Whether the proviso introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 is applicable to the case. 4. Whether the decision of the C.I.T. (Appeals) directing two separate assessments was correct. Analysis: 1. The case involved a firm dealing in grains that filed two returns for the assessment year 1981-82 due to the death of a partner. The Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) made a single assessment, considering it a change in the firm's constitution. The C.I.T. (Appeals) directed two separate assessments based on a retrospective amendment to section 187(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. 2. The Departmental Representative argued that the firm did not dissolve on the partner's death as per the partnership deed clauses. The new partnership deed also indicated continuity of the old firm. The Counsel for the assessee contended that the death of a partner results in the dissolution of the firm as per the Partnership Act, and the firm was dissolved post the partner's death. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the proviso to section 187(2) inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. It clarified that the proviso applies only if the firm stands dissolved on the death of a partner. In this case, the partnership deed explicitly stated that the firm would continue despite the death of a partner, making the proviso inapplicable. 4. The Tribunal held that the case did not involve the dissolution of the firm on the partner's death, as per the partnership deed provisions. Therefore, the proviso introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 was deemed inapplicable, and the decision of the C.I.T. (Appeals) directing two separate assessments was overturned. The new plea regarding the dissolution notice was rejected as it was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In conclusion, the departmental appeal was allowed, setting aside the C.I.T. (Appeals) order and restoring that of the I.T.O.
|
