TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (10) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax taken against the partnership firm known as Micheal Overman & Co. According to the statements of fact contained in the writ petition, the firm was assessed to income-tax amounting to Rs. 2,879 for the years 1953-54 to 1956-57. The entire tax was demanded from the petitioner, Shri Karam Singh Sobti, who had 60% share whereas Mr. Micheal Overman had a share of 40%. The petitioner represented ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer sought to recover the balance amount of Rs. 1,155.79 under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This was challenged by the present writ petition and the recovery proceedings were stayed by the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court. The case of the petitioner lies in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioner, his liability is limited to 60% of the tax liability and he cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Mr. M. L. Chopra, Income-tax Officer, by his letter dated August 31, 1959 : " Whether the letter dividing the amount can have any legal effect, resulting in the respondent being unable to collect the balance of the tax due from the partnership firm is dependent on whether there was any legal authority investing the Income-tax Officer with the power to limit the liability of a partner in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax Officer has no legal effect. It is possible for a creditor of a partnership firm to tell any one of the partners that his liability will be limited. There is no such suggestion in the letter written by the Income-tax Officer. Even if there was such a suggestion, it would not be binding on the Union of India because the Income-tax Officer has no power to write off any tax demand. In my view,....