9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e divided amongst the four partners in equal ratio, whether they are minors or majors, and the losses were to be borne by the two senior partners, it could be inferred that they have decided not to burden Shri Tarun Kumar with the share of loss in the firm even after he had become a partner on attaining majority ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration of the firm for the assessment year 1973-74 ? " The brief facts are that originally the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74 was completed by the Income-tax Officer on December 10, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed under section 263, he proceeded to consider the matter on merits. According to the Income-tax Officer as per the Commissioner of Income-tax, Shri Tarun Kumar, attained majority on July 21, 1971, and on becoming major, he became liable for losses in the firm also. The Income-tax Officer further observed that the instrument of partnership dated May 16, 1970, did not show how losses would be apportioned amongst the major partners on the attaining of majority by the minor partner. There was thus a change in the shares of the partners with regard to the losses of the firm and the certificate about no change in the shares of the partners given by the firm in Form No. 12 was held to be incorrect by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act which was rejected. The Revenue has, therefore, preferred this application under section 256(2) of the Act for requiring the Tribunal to state the case and to make a reference as aforesaid. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that no question of law arises out of the order of Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in refusing to make a reference. The question was whether the assessee was entitled to claim continuation of registration of the firm even after the date of minor, Tarun Kumar, attaining the age of majority on July 21, 1971, and the effect of Tarun Kumar's failure to sign the declaration in the requisite forms. In the light of the proviso to sub-section (5) and the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
