Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajdoot Enterprises. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax firm-assessment--two assessment or one--death of partner--resulted in dissolution of firm--two assessments to be made income tax act 1961 s.187 - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. jaipur benchthis reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue is to decide the following question of law, namely :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that it was not a case of change in constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, and, consequently, in directing the income-tax officer to make two separate assessments ?'the relevant assessment year is 1980-81. the material facts are these.out of the several partners in the firm, one of them, namely, navratanmal, died and a new firm was constituted with effect from june 7, 1979, during the relevant period. the assessee filed two returns for the periods prior and subsequent to the death of navratanmal and claimed that two separate assessments be made on their basis. the income-tax officer rejected the assessees contention and made only one assessment taking the view that it was a case merely of a change in the constitution of the firm. the assessees appeal to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) was allowed and the income-tax officer was directed to make two separate assessments as claimed by the assessee. the tribunal has affirmed this view. hence, this reference at the instance of the revenue.the present is a case governed by the amended section 187 as it stands after the insertion of the proviso in sub-section (2) of section 187 retrospectively with effect from april 1, 1975. the view taken in such a situation on the basis of the newly inserted proviso in sub-section (2) of section 187 by this court in cit v. assumal veerumal , is that it is a case of succession governed by section 188 of the act and not of a mere change in the constitution of the firm to which section 187 applies. following that decision, it is to be held that the tribunals view is justified.consequently, the reference is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the view taken by the tribunal is justified.no costs.