1998 PLP 1651 (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1651 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 224 I T R 267 |
| Bench Members | Om Prakash and B.K. Sharma, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1651 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1651 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 224 I T R 267 bench comprising: Om Prakash and B.K. Sharma, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1651 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Change in constitution or succession
No clause in partnership deed that firm to continue despite death of partner
Old firm stands dissolved
Two assessments to be made for two periods before and after death of partner
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.188. One of the partners of the assessee-firm died and a new firm came , into being with the remaining partners and a newly inducted member. On a reference of the question whether the income of the firm for the two periods before and after the death of the partner, could be clubbed: Held, that there was no clause in the partnership deed containing an agreement to the effect that the partnership firm would not dissolve despite the death of the partner. This was a case of succession, failing under section 188 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the income of the firm for the two periods could not be clubbed. Ashok Kumar for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that there was no clause in the partnership deed containing an agreement to the effect that the partnership firm would not dissolve despite the death of the partner. This was a case of succession, failing under section 188 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the income of the firm for the two periods could not be clubbed. Ashok Kumar for Applicant. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "B", Delhi, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law holding that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed?" The reference relates to the assessment year 1977-78. A partnership firm was originally constituted by four partners; of them, one of the partners, namely, Shankar Dass, died on September 16, 1976. Thereafter, a new firm was constituted by inducting Smt. Seelawati as a partner in place of the deceased partner alongwith the remaining existing partners. All these facts have been stated in the statement of the case. The question, therefore, arose whether on the death of Shankar Dass, the predecessor firm stood dissolved or that firm continued with a changed constitution. Sri Ashok Kumar, appearing for the Revenue, clearly states at the Bar that there was no clause in the partnership deed containing an agreement to the contrary that the partnership firm will not dissolve despite the death of a partner, Section 188 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that where a firm carrying on a business or profession is succeeded by another firm, and the case is not one covered by section 187, separate assessments shall be made on the predecessor firm and the successor firm in accordance with the provisions of section
188. One of the partners having died on September 16, 1976, and there being no agreement to the contrary in the partnership deed that the partnership firm will not dissolve despite the death of a partner, we hold that the predecessor firm stood dissolved on the death of Shankar Dass and a new firm came into being which was constituted by the remaining partners and Smt. Seelawati, and newly introduced partner. It is a case, of succession falling under section 188 of the Income Tax Act and not a case of change in the constitution of the firm, as envisaged in section
187. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed. For the reasons the aforementioned question referred to this Court is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. M.B.A./1419/FC Reference answered.