PARVATHAMMA K L Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the assessment order dt. 13th Jan., 1969, made by the ITO, Assessment No. 3, Bangalore (first respondent), and the order dt. 18th April, 1970, made by the third respondent-CIT.

(2.) THERE was a firm styled as "K. Shivappa and Sons". That consisted of six partners. The petitioner was one of the partners of the said firm. The firm was dissolved on 31st March, 1968, the intimation of which was given to the ITO. After the dissolution of the firm, the ITO had issued a notice under s. 139 of the IT Act, 1961, on 8th July, 1968, to one K. L. Mohan, who was one of the partners of the firm.

(3.) SRI Katageri argued that the expression "any person" found in the above sub-section should be construed to mean "all persons" who are partners of the firm. The learned counsel also relied on the provisions of s. 282 of the Act. We are unable to understand how s. 282 is helpful. Sub-s. (2) of s. 282 provides that any notice in the case of a firm may be served on any member of the firm. There was no provision in the 1922 Act corresponding to sub-s. (2) of s. 283. It is clear from s. 283 that before dissolution any notice in the case of a firm may be served on any member of the firm. Sub-s. (2) of s. 283 provides that notwithstanding the dissolution of the firm, notices under the Act in respect of the income of the firm may be served on any person who was a partner, not being a minor.