.....of the partners, the firm was reconstituted with the remaining two partners so only one assessment had to be made for the entire period.
income tax act, 1961 s.187
in the allahabad high court m. katju & umeshwar pandey, jj.
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under 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.....this is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act in which the following question has been referred 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 the firm, two assessments should be made, one for the period upto the date of the reconstitution of the firm and another for the post reconstitution period?'2. the assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. during the relevant previous year one of the partners retired from the firm on 28-2-1975 and thereafter the firm was reconstituted with the remaining two partners and a fresh deed was executed on 1-3-1975. the question is whether there will be one assessment year or two assessments. this controversy has been decided by a division bench of this court in cit v. ratan lal garib dass (2003) 261 itr 2001. following that decision the reference is decided in the negative that is in favour of the department and against the assessee.