9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961, which will hereafter be referred to as "the Act" has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. The application is directed against the order of the Tribunal refusing to refer to this court the following question of law which the applicant claims arises out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1965-66: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the business carried on by the firm to a new partnership firm with effect from August 26, 1964. On September 25, 1964, a fresh deed of partnership was also executed by the 6 partners and in the preamble it was recited that the new firm constituted thereunder would take over all the assets and liabilities, etc., of the dissolved firm with effect from August 26, 1964. The preamble also stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order as well as the orders made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal the actual figure shown is Rs. 2,94,425 whereas the assessment order itself mentioned that the income returned was shown at Rs. 2,94,273. We shall, however, take the figure of Rs. 2,94,425 as the finally accepted figure by the income-tax authorities. The assessee-firm appealed against the order contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication under section 256(1) of the Act requesting the Tribunal to state the case to this court and refer the question of law mentioned earlier. The Tribunal however rejected the application by its order dated September 20, 1969, holding that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was based on evidence placed before it, particularly the fact that the Income-tax Officer had granted registration to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised a question of fact. The question whether there was a new partnership or whether the old partnership continued was a question of fact and the finding of the Tribunal that the two partnerships were different was binding on the High Court. In the circumstances, the aggregation of the income of the two partnerships by the Income-tax Officer was not justified. The view taken by us has the support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
