9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further that separate assessments be made on the two firms for the assessment year 1969-70 ? " The facts giving rise to this reference, briefly stated, are as follows: The assessee, M/s. M. K. M. Moosa Bhoy Amin, is a registered firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated December 7, 1956, with the following five partners : 1. Shri Shamsuddin 2. Shri Saifuddin 3. Shri Saifuddin (Sunelwala) 4. Shri Hakimuddin 5. Shri Fatima Bai One of the partners, namely, Shamsuddin, died on June 11, 1968, and, thereafter another partnership deed was executed on June 13, 1968, among the remaining four partners of the earlier firm and Shri Kutbuddin and Shri Kalimuddin, sons of Shri Shamsuddin, deceased partner, and it commenced its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, the Tribunal found that on the death of Shri Shamsuddin, one of the partners, the assessee-firm stood automatically dissolved by operation of law and altogether a new firm came into being on and from June 12, 1968, and, therefore, s. 187(2) of the Act will not apply and dismissed the appeal. The Department moved an application under s. 256(1) of the Act for making a reference to this court and the Tribunal referred the abovementioned question of law for opinion to this court. We have heard Shri R. N. Surolia, the learned counsel for the Department, and Shri N. K. Jain, the learned counsel for the assessee, and have gone through the record of the case and also the various authorities submitted at the Bar. The learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied on the following authorities: (1) CIT v. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar [1982] 136 ITR 379 (Delhi), which has taken a contrary view and has relied on earlier decisions reported in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 517 (All) [FB], CIT v. Kunj Behari Shyam Lal [1977] 109 ITR 154 (All) [FB], Addl. CIT v. Dilsukh Rai Madho Prasad [1977] 108 ITR 299 (All), Kaithari Lungi Stores v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 160 (Mad), Mavukkarai (N.) Estate Tea Factory v. Addl. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 715 (Mad), Addl. CIT v. Thyagasundara Mudaliar [1981] 127 ITR 520 (Mad), Addl. CIT v. Vinayaka Cinema [1977] 110 ITR 468 (AP) [FB] and Mathurdas Govardhandas v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 470 (Cal) and has dissented from the earlier view of the Punjab High Court reported in Dh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yaka Cinema [1977] 110 ITR 468 (AP) [FB] (consisting of five judges), it has overruled its earlier view taken in Addl. CIT v. Visakha Hour Mills Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 466 (AP) [FB], and had followed the view taken by the Allahabad, Madras and Gujarat High Courts. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments and have gone through the various decisions of different High Courts and we are in agreement with the view taken by the Delhi, Allahabad, Madras, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts and dissent from the view taken by the Punjab Haryana High Court. Since the matter has already been discussed at length in various judgments of the High Courts noted above, especially in CIT v. Sant Lal Arvind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
