9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he previous year relevant for the assessment year 1976-77 ? " The facts, as briefly stated, are that the assessment year involved is 1976-77. The assessee, a dealer on wholesale basis in cloth, filed two returns of its income one for the period April 1, 1975, to August 14, 1975, and the other for the period from August 18, 1975, to March 31, 1976. The case of the assessee was that one of its partners, Sri Sobh Raj, died on August 14, 1975, and, therefore, the firm stood dissolved and an absolutely new firm came into existence on August 18, 1975. The assessee, therefore, contended that two assessments for two different periods on separate firms be made for the year 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer held that the firm was not dissolved on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 14, 1975, when the earlier firm was dissolved. The death of a partner art the one hand had the effect of dissolving the firm, while the continuity for the whole of the period a 12 months is absent and is found lacking as from the reading of the assessment order . . . . The cumulative effect of all these, is that, applying respectfully, the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Badri Narain Kashi Prasad v. Addl. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 858, there can be no other inference, but, that there were two different firms in existence for the two different periods and, accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, in appeal before us, we are of the opinion and do hold that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct or in law, that the old firm continued to exist notwithstanding the death of one of its partners. A clear finding being recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that no business was continued by the firm which existed up to August 14, 1975, on three days, the Appellate Tribunal was right in drawing the inference that the old firm came to an end upon the death of one of its partners on August 14, 1975, continued the business for the subsequent period (sic) and the contention of the Revenue that it is a case of change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of section 187 of the Act cannot be accepted. For the reasons, we answer the above question in the affirmative. The records of this case be sent down to the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
