9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the year 1979-80. We heard counsel for the Revenue as also counsel for the assessee. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. The accounting period is May 23, 1978, to March 31, 1979. The assessees are joint receivers appointed by the court to manage the firm, United Film Exhibitors, Palghat, till the winding up of the firm was complete. Though an array of facts are stated in the original petitions and also in the various annexures, the short question that arises for consideration is, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment for the year 1979-80, relevant for the accounting period May 23, 1978, to March 31, 1979, should be made in the status of a "firm" and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that in view of section 189 of the Income-tax Act, section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Saligram Ruplal Khanna v. Kanwar Rajnath, AIR 1974 SC 1094, the rights and liabilities of the partners continued till the date of dissolution on February 22, 1980, and the firm continued to be in existence till then and in the light of the legal principles discernible from the provisions of the statute and the decision referred to, the status to be assigned to the assessees is that of the person whom they represented. In this case, the joint receivers represented the firm. So, the firm continued up to Febr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in finding that United Film Exhibitors should have been assessed on the impugned income for the assessment year. 1979-80 in the capacity of a registered firm ? Original Petition No. 413 of 1988. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that the firm is entitled to depreciation?" The assessee has, in Original Petition No. 231 of 1988, prayed for referring the questions of law formulated in para 8 of the original petition, for the decision of this court. The questions are as follows "1 Whether there is any provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961, to assess a dissolved firm in respect of the income real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Appellate Tribunal. It is not open to any challenge ; nor was it challenged at the time of hearing. Till it was so wound up on February 7, 1980, the firm was in existence for the purpose of winding up and for completing the transactions undertaken earlier. The deed of dissolution was drafted on February 22, 1980. The firm continued up to February 7, 1980, and the receivers appointed by the court carried on the business of the firm though it may be only for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the firm. In the light of section 47 of the Partnership Act and section 189 of the Income-tax Act, understood in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in Saligram Ruplal Khanna's case, AIR 1974 SC 1094, we have necessarily to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
