9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (10) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in the circumstances of the case when the applicant was not a party to the partnership deeds in Kanpur Iron Supply Co., and U.P. Iron Steel Co., and no share of profits from those firms were received by him he could in law be held to be a 'partner' of the said firm?" 2. The facts as they appear from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the statement of the case are that the assessee was being assessed as a Hindu undivided family. On 2nd December 1938, a partnership firm known as Kanpur Iron Steel Co., was started of which one Brij Bhoosan Lal, a nephew of the assessee, was a partner. The share of the capital invested in the firm by Brij Bhoosan Lal was advanced by the assessee. The sum of ₹ 17,000 advanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has urged that as Brij Bhooshan Lal was the registered partner of the firm and the firm had been registered under the Indian Income-tax Act, it was not open to the department to treat the assessee as the partner in the Kanpur Iron Supply Company. According to the assessee this raises a very important question of law, i.e., whether a person other than a person registered as a partner of a firm can be treated as a partner. In the view that we have taken on the point that has been referred to us, it is not necessary to go into this question and we do not, therefore, think that it is necessary to grant the application under Section 66 (4), Income-tax Act. It is, therefore, dismissed. 5. As regards the question referred to us under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see will have to be included in the total income. He was, however, anxious to finish the assessment on the basis of the materials before him. Section 23, Income-tax Act contemplates that the Income-tax Officer should make a complete 'assessment on the basis of the total income of an assessee. It is not open to him to make assessments piecemeal and in a case where the Income-tax Officer has proceeded to assess one part of the income and has decided to assess the rest of the income on a later date he cannot rely on the provisions of Section 34 for the purpose of reopening the assessment. This is not a case where the Income-tax Officer had believed that there was no other income and the total income was as declared by the assessee on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
