9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be dissolved by April, 1945. An effort was made to reopen the assessment of income-tax made on this firm by a notice dated August 26, 1948. This notice having been found invalid, a fresh notice was issued on February 21, 1949. The notice was, however served on only one of the five partners of the dissolved firm, namely, Mangalchand Ramkumar. A return was filed under protest by this firm showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was valid initiation of the proceeding under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the hands of the assessee-firm, Supply Agency ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the return submitted on November 29, 1948, in pursuance of the notice under section 34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ITO v. A. Sattler [1973] 92 ITR 576 (SC) in which after the firm was dissolved an assessment was made giving notice only to one of the partners, G, though the firm was constituted of two partners, S and G. On assessment being so made, the wife of S wanted to leave India and prayed for a tax clearance certificate. This certificate was refused on the ground that there were tax arrears due from S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the several legal representatives would not be valid. Learned counsel submits that the same principle would apply in the case of a dissolved firm. Whether the contention of Shri Bhattacharjee is correct or not, we do not propose to express any opinion at this stage. Presently, we would only say that the following question of law does arise in the present case : "Whether, on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
