9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outstanding demand/dues of the firm M/s Ganganagar Cotton Ginning and Pressing factory from which she had already retired. 2. That the learned CIT(A) was not justified on facts and in law in holding that the appellant was a partner of the dissolved firm, M/s Ganganagar Cotton Ginning and Pressing factory in the asst. yr. 1999-2000 and also that she factually did not retire from the aforesaid firm in April, 1990. 3. That the learned CIT(A), was not justified on facts and in law in holding that: (i) the partnership deed executed on 2nd April, 1990 did not evidence that the appellant opted out of the business. Further, there was no document or letter or dissolution deed to evidence that the appellant opted out of business. (ii) the partne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice on the dissolved firm and also on all the existing partners, individually, who included both these appellants, who were treated as partners of the firm during the relevant period. The basic common contention of the appellants is that they were not partners in the dissolved firm at the relevant time and had retired much earlier, long before the dissolution and therefore, no demand notice could be served on them, in lieu of the demand raised against the firm. 3. The learned CIT(A) after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case gave verbatim identical findings in both the cases in his separate orders of the same date i.e., 2nd Aug., 2004. We extract the operational part of the order given in last para of p. 6 for ready ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants are "premature". The AO has to first take action under s. 189(3) and only when he fails to recover the demand from the firm then he can take action against the partners. The appellants have even challenged the "fact finding" by learned CIT(A), that these appellants were partners in the firm, inter alia. They have stated that they were not the partners in the firm at the time of its dissolution and as such they are not liable for its acts and conducts. 4. We have heard rival submissions and have perused the available materials on record carefully. 5. Recently this Bench has decided the case of the firm in which a legal ground was taken in relation to service of notice under s. 148 of the Act. This Bench has given a finding of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued. 6. In fact, all the common grounds raised in these appeals are interlinked and interconnected. The perusal of the records reveals that the constitution of the firm underwent changes. Both these assessees joined the firm on 9th Aug., 1977 having shares of 12 per cent each in the profits and losses of the firm. At that time total number of partners were 13, a copy of the partnership-deed is enclosed. Subsequently, this partnership had undergone a change and new deed of partnership was executed on 1st Sept., 1981, in which number of partners were reduced to 10 only. Both these appellants continued to have 12 per cent share each as above. Yet, another change took place on 2nd April, 1990 and a fresh deed was executed in which only 5 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
