9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners, Ghisa Ram, died. The firm came to an end and was succeeded by another firm. The new firm adopted the financial year as its previous year. A return was filed on behalf of the old firm for the period October 19, 1971, to December 20, 1971, and a third return was filed on behalf of the new firm for the period December 21, 1971, to March 31, 1972. Before the ITO, counsel appearing for the assessee conceded that the income for the period October 21, 1970, to March 31, 1972, may be assessed for the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO acted accordingly and passed a single assessment order for the entire period for which the assessee had, in fact, filed three returns of income. The assessee went up in appeal. Before the AAC, it was urged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two and not three assessments be framed. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion : " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee from October 18, 1971, to December 20, 1971, which was relevant for the assessment year 1973-74 for which a separate return was filed be included in the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified that one assessment be made for the income of more than fourteen months, i.e, one from October 20, 1970, to October 18, 1971, and the other from October 19, 1971, to December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... automatic end and the books of account have got to be closed ending with the period when the business closes. In this view, the period October 19, 1971, to December 20, 1971, during which the old firm continued to do business, was referable to the assessment year 1973-74 and an assessment order could be passed validly against the old firm only for the year 1973-74. This period could not be clubbed with the assessment year 1972-73. The AAC was hence justified in directing that the assessment for the period be framed against the old firm, but for the period 1973-74. Mr. Gulati, learned counsel for the revenue, submitted that no appeal lay to the AAC against the ITO's assessment order because it was based on the concession made by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
