9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimated the turnovers at Rs. 4,00,000 for photographs and Rs. 30,000 for darkroom receipts for the asst. yr. 1973-74. For the asst. yr. 1974-75 he took the sales at Rs. 3,70,000 and Rs. 7,390 for photographs and dark room receipts. In the first year he applied the G.P. rate of 16 per cent and 47 per cent whereas in the second year he applied the G.P. rate of 16 per cent and 48 per cent. Thereby the ITO took the additional profit of Rs. 11,345 and Rs. 4,253. On appeal, the assessee contended that the profit shown by it was fair and similar profit was accepted in the earlier years. The assessee also state that the profit of 16.5 per cent was accepted by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1968-69. The AAC deleted the addition against which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns but however the ITO clubbed the Income and made one assessment. The AAC directed the ITO to make two separate assessments. The Departmental Representative stated that against this finding of the AAC the Department is in appeal. The counsel of the assessee objected that the second ground taken by the Department related to the addition in the trading account and it does not relate to the registration. Accordingly, the counsel of the assessee urged that the Departmental Representative should not be allowed to urge on the ground of registration. 4. The ground is not happily worded and it is not clear. However, the Departmental Representative through this ground requests that the order of the ITO should be cancelled and the ITO should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue but however it is clear from the assessment order that he had clubbed the income for two periods and completed one assessment. 7. The assessee came in appeal before the AAC and contended that the newly constituted firm being a separate entity should have been assessed separately to which the ITO did not agree and he made consolidated assessment for both the periods. It was further argued that the income derived by the new firm does not become the income of the old firm and there is no provision in the act to aggregate the income of the assessee. The assessee relied on 106 ITR 342. The AAC accepted the arguments of the assessee and he directed the ITO to make separate assessments. It is clear from the facts that on the death of Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consent of others". From the observations of the Supreme Court it is clear that the firm came to an end on 21st Aug., 1973. The assessee firm started its business from 22nd Aug., 1973 on the basis of a partnership deed by which Shri Kumud Chand Ojha and Shri Jagdish Chandra Ojha started a partnership business. A separate books of accounts have been maintained and a separate return has been filed claiming registration for the new firm. Under the circumstances, the ITO was not justified to club the income of the new firm with the income of the firm which was dissolved on 21st Aug., 1973 by operation of law. The cases relied on by the assessee are not relevant to the facts of the case. I, accordingly, maintain the finding of the AAC but on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
