9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be validly initiated against the firm after its dissolution ? " Messrs. Hari Om Company, Kanpur (a dissolved firm), is the assessee. 1956-57 is the assessment year. In the first instance, the Income-tax Officer assessed the partners of the firm individually. Thereafter, he proceeded to assess the firm as such. The firm raised an objection that the assessment of the firm was not permissible in law after the assessment of the individual partners. This contention was overruled by the Income-tax Officer. The firm applied for registration. That claim was rejected. The Income-tax Officer proceeded to make the assessment on the footing that it was an unregistered firm. The firm challenged these decisions by the Income-tax Officer. On the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case should be disposed of under section 23(5)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal observed in its appellate order : " Taking the first contention, Shri Gulati conceded that if the firm is ultimately registered, the assessee would have no serious grievance. But the department has not accepted the Tribunal's order granting registration. The assessee is, therefore, obliged to press this ground before us. " That observation in the appellate order indicates that, in spite of the decision by the Tribunal directing registration of the firm, the department was for some reason not prepared to proceed on the footing that the firm was entitled to registration. In the first instance, the Income-tax Officer made the assessment on the footing that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11-3-1968). It was held in that case that it is not legal to make an assessment on an unregistered firm after some of its partners have already been assessed to tax on their share income from the firm. In view of the decisions of this court, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Jhawar, the first question must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Mr. P. N. Pachauri, appearing for the assessee, did not press the second question. We need not, therefore, answer this question. Our answer to the first question referred to this court is in the negative. We give no answer to the second question. Parties shall bear their own costs in this reference.. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
