TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (7) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mali Shri. Tafzul Hussain, Shri Manzoor Ali, Shri Lukman Ali, alias Hakimuddin and Shri Mushtak Hussain. According to para 6 of the partnership deed, the firm was not to dissolve in the event of death of a partner, but the partnership was to be carried on by taking the legal heir of the deceased in place of the latter, Shri Mohd. Hussain had died on 13th Mar, 1978. The firm closed its books of account and the shop of the firm remained closed from 10th March, 1978 to 31st Mar, 1978, New partnership was entered into by a fresh instrument of partnership wherein Amina Bai wife to deceased was taken in his deceased, was taken in his place. The firm, for the period ended 13th Mar, 1978, filed a return and also a renewal certificate in the prescri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 31st Mar, 1978. In his return it was a case of constitution of the find and not of succession considered in this light. It this light, he found that grant of renewal of registration was a mistake committed by the ITO. He, therefore, vacated the order of the ITO and directed him to treat the assessee as URF and work out the tax payable on that basis. 3. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has made several submissions. According to him, the action of the CIT was not properly conceived in law. Neither the order of the ITO was erroneous on the facts and in the circumstances of the case nor was there any prejudice caused to revenue. It was not the case of CIT that the firm was not genuine or bona fide for which renewal of registration ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch ended on 13th March, 1978 following the death of Shri Mohd. Hussain. What was provided for in the instrument of partnership of the old firm or that of the reconstituted firm, is in our mind, not so material for consideration as the facts which took place. It might have been the pious wish on the part of the contracting parties to the partnership that partnership should not be dissolved but should be continued. But if the contracting parties, who by closing accounts, thought to dissolve the firm as is the case put up by the assessee and also admitted by revenue for the purpose of controverting it, revenue cannot step in and question the propriety of the Act having taken place at the instance of the contracting parties. We have to consider....