1984 (11) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irm. The connected orders were served on one of the partners by name Gangadhar Gowd. It appears, the partnership firm was dissolved and the orders in question were served on the abovementioned Gangadhar Gowd. The said Gangadhar Gowd did not take any action to appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing the registration of the firm. In course of time, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for recovery of the tax due from the partnership firm and in the course of such proceedings, the Tax Recovery Officer attached the immovable properties of another partner by name Ganga Gowd and also seized a sum of Rs. 20,000 from his premises. At that stage, Gangadhar Gowd seems to have made enquiries' about the reasons for attachmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeals filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were within time for the relevant assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefit of registration for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?" It is not in dispute that the partnership was dissolved and after such dissolution, the Income-tax Officer served the orders refusing the registration to the firm on one of the partners, by name Gangadhar Gowd. Apparently, he did not take any action and when the properties of (another partner) Ganga Gowd were sought to be....