TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (2) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee filed the return declaring an income of Rs. 1,73,770. Lateron, a revised return was filed declaring an income of Rs. 1,63,770. The assessee has furnished declaration in Form No. 12 for grant of continuation of registration for the period 1st July, 1970 to 6th Feb., 1971. According to the assessee, on the death of Shri Ashok Kumar, one of the partners on 6th February, 1971, the firm stood dissolved. The assessee was required by the ITO to file the application in Form No. 11A for grant of fresh registration. The application in Form No. 11A was not filed within time. So the ld. ITO did not grant registration to the firm for the period commencing from 7th Feb., 1971 to 30th June, 1971. He was of the view that form No. 12 was within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case one assessment should have been made for both the periods. 5. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that on the death of a partner there was no change in the constitution of the firm and as such the assessee was within its right to file form No. 12 for the period from 1st July, 1970 to 6th Feb., 1971. The learned ITO was of the view that on the death of Shri Ashok Kumar the firm was not dissolved. According to him, after the death of Shri Ashok Kumar his heir was taken as a partner. The firm continued its business with this new partner and remaining partners were old. So the ld. ITO was of the view that there was change in the constitution of the firm. The ld. ITO was of the view that when there is conflict between the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase is covered under s. 184(8) of the IT Act. 1961. He was also of the view that the ld. CIT was wrong in not completing the assessment in the status of URF for the whole year. So according to the ld. CIT the finding of the ld. ITO was correct. 8. Before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee inter alia the same contentions were raised which were advanced before the authorities below. According to the ld. counsel, if ITO was of the view that registration was wrongly allowed, he could have invoked provisions of s. 186(1) of the Act. As a matter of fact, the present case is covered by the s. 188 of the Act because after the death of a partner the firm was dissolved. The assessee filed form No. 12 in the first period because in the immediat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iately preceding year. For the remaining period the form No. 11A was filed but since it was barred by time the learned ITO made the assessment for that period in the status of unregistered firm. The assessee has not challenged the finding of the ITO in respect of the remaining period. The assessee has been challenging the finding of the authorities below regarding the first period. According to cl. 12 of the partnership deed, on the death of a partner the firm necessarily will not be dissolved. In order to interpret this clause all the facts and circumstances will have to be examined. In appreciating such facts possibly there can be two opinions. According to the partnership deed, on the death of a partner the firm may or may not be dissolv....