9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not confirming the action of the Income-tax Officer in clubbing the income of both the periods ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the legal issue in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 517 [FB] ?" Briefly, the facts are that a partnership was formed under a partnership deed dated March 30, 1964, by three partners, namely, Suraj Bhan, Mahavir Pras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust 20, 1971. The dissolution deed gives out that the three partners of the old firm Suraj Bhan and Mahavir Prasad retired from the partnership and were paid off the amounts lying to their credit in lieu of surrender of their rights in the properties and assets of the firm, and that both of them surrendered their rights in the properties and assets of the firm in favour of the third partner, Mahinder Kumar. On the other hand, the new partnership deed dated August 21, 1971, recites that it was only Mahavir Prasad who retired from the old firm and that the two remaining partners, Mahinder Kumar and Suraj Bhan were to continue the partnership. This contradiction was put to the assessee's learned counsel, Sri D. K. Gupta.... Shri Gupta was unab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to state the correct facts. There being a contradiction in the factual position in the dissolution deed and in the new partnership deed dated August 21, 1971, we are of the view that no exception could be taken to the order of the Appellate Tribunal in not confirming the Income-tax Officer's order and in remanding the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Then comes the last question. The submission of learned standing counsel is that the Appellate Tribunal could not bind the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with the legal position as stated thereby in the order dated October 23, 1978. We have carefully gone through the order of the Appellate Tribunal and also we have produced the relevant findings hereinabove. From the above re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
