1984 (10) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lution of the partnership ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a single assessment for the full year, viz., July 1, 1971, to June 30, 1972, was justified ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration for the period July 1, 1971, to January 4, 1972 ?" The assessee is a firm. It was originally constituted by a deed of partnership, dated December 18, 1968, according to which there were 19 partners including one Gunapal. Clause (16) of the deed provided as follows: "If during the continuance of the firm any of the partners shall die or become insolvent or be incapacitated to become a partn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion for registration was filed either in Form No.11 or in Form No.11A which the firm was required to file, if the old firm had been dissolved and a new firm had come into existence. Only declaration in Form No. 12 was filed stating that there was no change in the constitution of the firm. Although no application for registration as such was filed, it was claimed before the Income-tax Officer that registration has to be granted at least for the first part of the period, i.e., till the death of Gunapal, viz., for the period from July 1, 1971, to January 4, 1972. But that claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer by observing that there was only a change in the constitution of the firm. Accordingly, he made a single assessment for the e....