Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood before the 1958 amendment, a partner of a dissolved firm could be proceeded against and assessed in respect of the pre-dissolution income of the firm, and whether the notice issued under section 34 was valid.
Analysis: The old section 44 covered a case where business carried on by a firm had been discontinued, and a dissolution of the firm necessarily involved such discontinuance. Though the earlier text used the word "firm" in the part dealing with discontinuance and omitted it in the part dealing with dissolution, the provision was construed as applying to a dissolved firm whose business had ceased. The assessment machinery was therefore available against the persons who were partners at the time of dissolution, on a joint and several basis, for the tax payable on the firm's pre-dissolution income. The later amendment of 1958 was treated as clarificatory rather than as creating the liability for the first time. On that construction, a notice under section 34 addressed to a partner as such was not invalid merely because the firm had been dissolved.
Conclusion: The notice and the reassessment proceedings were held valid, and the challenge under article 226 failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the unamended section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, dissolution of a partnership firm amounted to discontinuance of its business for assessment purposes, so the partners at the time of dissolution remained jointly and severally liable to be assessed on the firm's pre-dissolution income.