9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with the partnership deed. 2. The appellant in this case is a firm. The relevant accounting year is the year ended 31-3-1975. It appears that a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was issued and served on the assessee on 26-2-1977 as no return of income was filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 (apparently wrongly mentioned as 1976-77 in the assessment order by the ITO). Since no return was forthcoming, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued again on 3-3-1978. In response to this notice return of income was filed on 13-3-1978, it appears that this return was not signed by all the partners. The assessment was also done on 13-3-1978 in the status of unregistered firm at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business of the firm until the final disposal of the suit. On 1-9-1975 a settlement was reached between the partners whereby a deed of assignment was executed on that day in terms of which Shri S.C. Shah agreed to assign his share of 12.5 per cent in the firm in lieu of Rs. 20,000 to Shri M.C. Shah. This deed of assignment provided, inter alia, (i) that the partnership dated 14-8-1969 stood dissolved with effect from 12-1-1974, and (ii) that Shri M.C. Shah and others shall be at liberty to continue to carry on the business on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon. Effectively, therefore, according to the ITO, Shri S.C. Shah had relinquished his share in the partnership firm in consideration of receipt of a lump sum amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITO to whom they were addressed. Both these forms contained only the signatures of four partners and the other columns were completely blank. 5. The ITO initially passed an order under section 185(1)(b) on 13-3-1978 and not an order under section 184(7) of the Act. On the same day, he also passed an order under section 143(3) of the Act in which he has said that Form No. 11 did not indicate the assessment year to which it pertained and that both Form Nos. 11 and 12 were signed by only four partners. They were also filed too late for the assessment year 1975-76. The registration was refused by invoking the provisions of section 185(1)(b) initially. Ultimately the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the appellant was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make specific reference to all the partners, the factum of their carrying on business in terms of a deed of partnership dated 14-8-1969, the shares of various partners, etc. Specific reference is made to the suit filed by the assignor. The very first clause states that the firm constituted by the assignor, the assignee and the said Babulal Karsondas Vora, Rajendra Vora, Ramesh Chimanlal Shah, Narendra Chimanlal Shah and Bapulal Chunilal Shah in terms of a partnership deed dated 14-8-1969 stands dissolved with effect from 12-1-1974. A provision is also made in clause 3 for giving notice of dissolution of the said partnership in Indian Express. Clause 9 reads as under : "8. The assignor doth hereby covenant with the assignee that he will s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
