Independent partner appeal and exclusion of copy-obtaining time under limitation rules protected the assessee's appeal.

A partner had an independent statutory right of appeal under the second proviso to section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that right was not defeated because another partner of the dissolved firm had already appealed. Where both appeals were pending, they could be consolidated and disposed of by a common order. Section 67A also required exclusion of the day on which the assessment order was made and the time needed to obtain a copy of that order when computing limitation for appeal; that exclusion did not depend on any requirement to file the copy with the memorandum of appeal. The result was that the appeal remained competent and within limitation in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a partner's appeal under the second proviso to section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 remained competent notwithstanding an earlier appeal by another partner of the dissolved firm; (ii) whether the time taken by the partner in obtaining a copy of the assessment order was excludable in computing limitation under section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether a partner's appeal under the second proviso to section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 remained competent notwithstanding an earlier appeal by another partner of the dissolved firm.

Analysis: The second proviso conferred an independent right of appeal on each partner where the partners of a firm were individually assessable on their shares in the firm's total income. That right was not extinguished merely because another partner had already filed an appeal. Since both appeals were pending before the appellate authority at the relevant time, there was no legal impediment to their consolidation and disposal by a common order.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and competent in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the time taken by the partner in obtaining a copy of the assessment order was excludable in computing limitation under section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 67A expressly directed exclusion of the day on which the order was made and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order in computing limitation for an appeal under the Act. The exclusion was not conditioned on any obligation to file a copy of the impugned order with the memorandum of appeal. The period spent in obtaining the copy was therefore deductible from the limitation period.

Conclusion: The appeal was within limitation in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee, and the reference was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A partner having an independent statutory right of appeal under the second proviso to section 30(1) is not deprived of that right because another partner has already appealed, and section 67A requires exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the impugned order irrespective of whether filing such copy is mandatory with the appeal.

---