9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livered by SRINIVASA IYENGAR J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for decision by this court: Question in I.T.R.C. No. 2/1975: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,200 accruing to the assessee by virtue of the deed (of dissolution) dated October 6, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partners, namely, M. N. Lakshmana Shetty, assessee in I.T.R.C. No. 2 of 1975 and M. N. Eswara Shetty, assessee in I.T.R.C. No. 32 of 1975, retired from the partnership with effect from July 1, 1965. This dissolution is evidenced by a document drawn up on October 6, 1965. In accordance with the terms of the deed of dissolution, Lakshmana Shetty got a sum of Rs. 2,86,100 and Eswara Shetty, a sum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessees preferred appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as the ITO had exercised option to assess the firm as such, he had to proceed on the basis of the assessment of the firm and not include amounts which were not included in the profits of the firm, in the individual assessments as attributable to their shares. The Tribunal held that the firm had to be assessed and only the shares att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be the basis on which the share of the profits of the firm so far as partners were concerned had to be included in their individual assessments. If there was any income of the firm that had escaped assessment, the proper procedure was to take action for its reassessment and on the basis of the reassessment revise the assessment of the individual partners. This course was not followed by the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
