Cit Vs. Sri Sidh and Co.

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. orderm. katju, j.heard counsel for the parties.2. this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act in which the following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that where there is a change in the constitution of a firm, two assessments have to be made, one in respect of the income derived before reconstitution and another in respect of the income derived after reconstitution of the firm ?'3. the assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1979-80. during this assessment year one of the partners sri beni prasad tandon died on 2-6-1978. according to clause 14 of the partnership deed the firm was not to be dissolved on the death of one of the partners. in view of the decision in cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) there was no dissolution of the assessee firm. hence, there has to be a single assessment and not two assessments.4. we, however, reframe the question referred to us as follows :'whether there was any dissolution of the firm or only reconstitution on account of death of one of the partners and consequently whether there will be two assessments or only one assessment ?'5. we answer the above question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee, and hold that there will be only one assessment and not two assessments.