9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, a single assessment for the full year, viz., July 1, 1971, to June 30, 1972, was justified ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration for the period July 1, 1971, to January 4, 1972 ?" The assessee is a firm. It was originally constituted by a deed of partnership, dated December 18, 1968, according to which there were 19 partners including one Gunapal. Clause (16) of the deed provided as follows: "If during the continuance of the firm any of the partners shall die or become insolvent or be incapacitated to become a partner, the surviving partners may take the legal heir or heirs of the deceased partner in his p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to file, if the old firm had been dissolved and a new firm had come into existence. Only declaration in Form No. 12 was filed stating that there was no change in the constitution of the firm. Although no application for registration as such was filed, it was claimed before the Income-tax Officer that registration has to be granted at least for the first part of the period, i.e., till the death of Gunapal, viz., for the period from July 1, 1971, to January 4, 1972. But that claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer by observing that there was only a change in the constitution of the firm. Accordingly, he made a single assessment for the entire previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. He has also refused to grant regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the firm and a single assessment was rightly made by the Income-tax Officer. On the question of registration also, the Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the lower authorities in refusing to grant registration, even for part of the year up to the death of one of the partners. The question referred should not detain us any longer, since, the matter has been completely covered by the decisions of this court in CIT v. Shambulal Nathalal [1984] 145 ITR 329 and in CIT v. Sree Durga Enterprises [1984] 145 ITR 351. This court has consistently followed that in a case like this, there could only be a single assessment for the whole year. So far as question No. 3, relating to registration for the period July 1, 1971, to January 4, 1972, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
