9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 1975, and the other for the period October 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976, and not the assessment as made by the Income-tax Officer ?" The brief facts are that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, to which the dispute pertains, up to September 30, 1975, the assessee-firm was comprised of four partners which included two minors admitted to the benefits of partnership. With effect from September 30, 1975, the minors admitted to the benefits of partnership retired from the firm. The remaining two partners alone with one Smt. Parmeshwari Devi executed a new deed of partnership with effect from October 1, 1975. The assessee claimed that two separate assessments were to be made in respect of two broken periods, i.e., one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 187 is defined in sub-section (2) by its clauses (a) and (b). On a plain reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 187, it would be evident that when one or more of the partners retire(s) and the business is continued by the remaining partners with or without new partner(s), the case falls within the mischief of section 187(2) of the Act. At this juncture, we may notice that in the case of Shiv Shanker Lal [1977] 106 ITR 342 (All), the view expressed by this court was that in case where the firm is reconstituted, the old firm ceases to exist. Section 187 does not contemplate that the income derived by the old firm becomes the income of the reconstituted firm. It was pointed out that all that section 187 provides for, is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authorities had failed to address themselves on the point that the assessee's case was one of succession and not a case of reconstitution, inasmuch as the reconstitution was preceded by a dissolution of the firm. We are unable to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the assessee. From a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is abundantly clear that no such plea was put forward before it on behalf of the assessee. The question that fell for consideration before the Tribunal was that there being a reconstitution of the firm in terms of section 187(2), whether two separate assessments in respect of the broken periods were called for. It is on this premise the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Appellate Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
