9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered firm after assessing the share income from the firm in the hands of one of the partners ? " The facts lie with a short compass. The assessee, the applicant before us, is an unregistered firm carrying on business in the supply of stores to the military department on contract. There were two partners, Kallu Mal and J.P. Srivastava, whose shares where equal. The assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1959-60 was completed on September 17, 1960, but before that one of the partners, namely, Kallu Mal, had already been assessed on his share income from the firm. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on September 17, 1960, and one of the grounds raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We, therefore, reject this contention of the assessee. " At the instance of the applicant-firm the Tribunal has referred the question of law for the opinion of this court as set out above. An answer to the question referred will be found in the clear language of section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section. Section 3 runs as follows : " Charge of income-tax.-Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at any rate or rates tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every individual, Hindu undivided family, company and local authority, and of every firm and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed individually or they may be assessed collectively in the statue of an unregistered firm : the Income-tax Officer cannot however seek to assess the one income twice-once in the hands of the partners and again in the hands of the unregistered firm. " As already stated, the charging section contemplates assessment either of the firm or its partners or, if the assessee is an association of persons, assessment may be made on either the association or, in the alternative, on its members. This court was perhaps the first to expound the clear implications of the charging section in respect of the assessment of an association and its members. In the case of Joti Prasad Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer, decided by a Bench of this court in 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 23(5) nor section 35(5) confers a right on the department to tax the income of the firm in the hands of the firm after it has been brought to tax in the hands of the partners of the firm. The decision of the Bombay High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory. Very recently, this court reaffirmed the same principle, which it had already laid down in the case of Joti Prasad Agarwal, in the case of Hari Om Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax, decided by a Bench of which my Lord the Chief Justice was a member. The dictum laid down by this court in Hazari Ram Mohan Ram was misconstrued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It does not lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
