9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e firm was dissolved. The dissolution deed dated December 28, 1966, shows that the accounts were settled and the remaining partners took over the business including the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm. In other words, they continued to carry on the same business in the same name and style under a new partnership deed of the same date. On September 30, 1967, the assessee-firm as constituted on December 28, 1966, filed a consolidated return showing the income for two periods, that is, from April 1, 1966, to December 27, 1966, and from December 28, 1966, to March 31, 1967. The assessee also filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuance of the registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had been dissolved on December 28, 1966, it was a case of succession and not of change in the constitution of the firm and so two assessments under section 188 of the Act instead of one assessment under section 187 of the Act should be framed. (2) That, in any case, renewal of registration should be granted to the firm for the period commencing from April 1, 1966, and ending on December 27, 1966, under section 184(7) of the Act. (3) That there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for registration and registration should be granted to the assessee-firm for the period commencing from December 28,1966, and ending on March 31, 1967. (4) That since the assessment of one of the partners, namely, Shri Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that this was a case of 'change in the constitution' of the firm within the meaning of section 187(2) and not of 'succession' of one firm by another firm under section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that renewal of registration could not be granted under law for a part of the accounting period, i.e., for the period from April 1, 1966, to December 27, 1966 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the application fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he description of section 187(2) of the Act which entitles the Income-tax Officer to frame only one assessment. We are bound to follow this view with respect. The same view was taken in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. Income-tax Officer [1976] 103 ITR 517 (All) [FB], Commissioner of Income-tax v. T. Veeraraghavulu Chetty and Sons Co. [1975] 100 ITR 723 (AP) and Kaithari Lungi Stores v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1976] 104 ITR 160 (Mad). We, accordingly, answer the first question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 can be conveniently dealt with together. It was found as a matter of fact by the Income-tax Officer that no application for registration had been filed by the newly constituted firm before the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
