Firm status required for Taxation Concessions Order benefit; joint business by individuals alone was insufficient.

Eligibility for the Taxation Concessions Order, 1964 depended on the assessee showing that a firm, as distinct from its individual constituents, had carried on business in Goa before the appointed day. The record showed only that the same individuals were operating jointly before that date; it did not establish an existing partnership firm in law, including the essential element of mutual agency. As a firm is a separate assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the concession had to be proved in that capacity. The claim therefore failed, and the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, as a firm, had carried on business in Goa before the appointed day so as to qualify for the concession under the Taxation Concessions Order, 1964.

Analysis: The material on record showed only that the same individuals had been carrying on business jointly before the appointed day; it did not establish that there was, in law, a partnership firm functioning before that date. A partnership requires an agreement, sharing of profits, and mutual agency, and the evidence did not prove the essential element of mutual agency or an existing firm as such. The relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 show that a firm is itself an assessee and its status is distinct, so eligibility for the concession had to be shown in the capacity of a firm carrying on business before the appointed day. The Court did not accept the broader submission that the individual constituents alone were sufficient for the concession.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the concession, and the question was answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue.

---