1973 (8) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Partnership Firm Tax Assessment: Single vs. Separate Assessments

Karupukula Suryanarayana Shetty And Sons Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore.

The case involved a partnership firm with a change in constitution, leading to a dispute over whether one assessment or separate assessments were ... ' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, when there was a change in the constitution of the assessee-firm the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that only one assessment should be made? ' Issues:- Whether a change in the constitution of an assessee-firm justifies only one assessment according to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.- Whether separate assessments should be made for two different periods following a change in the constitution of a firm.- The interpretation of sections 187 and 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding assessments in cases of changes in firm constitution.Analysis:The case involved a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of agarbatties, with a change in its constitution on September 1, 1965. The primary issue was whether one assessment or separate assessments should be conducted following this change. The assessee contended that two separate assessments were necessary due to the formation of a new firm post-reconstitution. However, the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal all held that only one assessment should be made for the entire assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that assessments should be based on the firm's constitution at the time of assessment, as per section 187(1) of the Income-tax Act.The assessee further argued that separate assessments were required to properly apportion income between partners for different periods. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the clear language of section 188, which mandates separate assessments only in cases of one firm succeeding another, not in instances of a change in firm constitution covered under section 187. The Tribunal's stance was that the case fell under section 187, and hence, only one assessment was necessary.The Tribunal's decision was deemed correct by the High Court, emphasizing that the case did not involve succession of one firm by another, as specified in section 188. The Court clarified that the matter of income apportionment among partners was not under consideration in the reference and was not a basis for requiring separate assessments. The Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation of the law, affirming that the assessment should be on the firm as constituted at the time of assessment, in line with section 187(1). Therefore, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision and awarding costs to the department.