Just a moment...
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, on the death of a partner and reconstitution of the partnership, the case fell within a mere change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to justify one composite assessment, or whether the firm stood dissolved and a new firm succeeded to the business under section 188.
Analysis: A firm cannot be treated as continuing for assessment purposes where, on the death of a partner, there is no express stipulation that the firm shall not stand dissolved. In such a situation, the firm stands dissolved in law, and where the conduct of the parties also shows dissolution in fact, the successor concern is a new firm. The periods before and after dissolution cannot be clubbed together for a single assessment; the correct approach is to treat the matter as one of succession rather than mere reconstitution.
Conclusion: The case was governed by section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not by section 187(2). One single assessment covering both periods was not justified, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express agreement preserving the firm on the death of a partner, the firm stands dissolved in law, and the post-dissolution business carried on by the continuing persons constitutes succession under section 188, requiring separate assessments for the pre- and post-dissolution periods.