9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also accepted by the income-tax authorities in the earlier years and the respective shares were assessed in the hands of the firm as well as of Sri S. N. Agarwalla separately as shares from a joint venture. In the assessment year 1963-64, the ITO held that it was not a case of joint venture as regular business had been carried on from 1951 to 1965. Being of the opinion that it was a case of association of persons between the firm and Sri Agarwalla, he called upon this new entity to file a return of income. Returns showing " nil " incomes for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 were filed under protest on the ground that the business belonged to a joint venture and there was no separate entity. The ITO, however, made the assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tan Co., the firm, and Sri S. N. Agarwalla were made on August 1, 1968, and March 19, 1969, respectively. It was, therefore, held by the Tribunal that the assessment on M/s. C. Ratan Co., the firm, was made earlier to the income having been assessed in the status of the association of persons. It was, of course, argued on behalf of the department that in the assessment of M/s. C. Ratan Co. (firm) the share from the association of persons was taken only for the purpose of rate pending the assessment on the association of persons which meant that it was not actually assessed as contemplated in the decision of the Supreme Court. This argument, of course, was rejected. The Tribunal pointed out that the assessment on M/s. C. Ratan Co. (f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95, to which reference has been made by the AAC. It is held therein that the partners of an unregistered firm might be assessed individually or they may be assessed collectively in the status of an unregistered firm: the ITO could not, however, seek to assess the one income twice-once in the hands of the partners and again in the hands of the unregistered firm. In the case of Ramanlal Madanlal v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 657, this Bench also held that once the partners had been assessed, the firm could not be assessed or vice versa. Mr. B. K. Bagchi, the learned advocate appearing for the revenue, does not challenge the principle of assessment enunciated by the Supreme Court. His only contention is that in the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Ratan CO. (firm) had been made under s. 143(3). In the opinion of the Tribunal, s. 2(40) lays down that the assessment in the above section was to be accepted as " regular assessment ". Thus, the inclusion of the share in the assessment off M/s.c. Ratan Co. (firm), according to the Tribunal, amounted to regular assessment. We are not (sitting) in appeal against such a conclusion. So, we need not make any observation as to the propriety or otherwise of such finding. We are only to answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal. Mr. B. K. Bagchi, the learned advocate appearing for the revenue, contends with reference to the decision in the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) that such a point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
