COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. LAW TIMES PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the respondent-assessee. Heard counsel for the Revenue.

(2.) The following question is referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

(3.) The assessee is a partenership firm. The assessment year concerned is 1973-74. At the inception of the relevant previous year, the firm comprised seven partners. On October 6, 1972, one of the partners retired. The remaining partners exeuted a new partnership deed on October 12, 1972, with effect from October 7, 1972. In the above circumstances, the question arose as to whether it is a case of reconstitution calling for one assessment for the entire year or a case of succession calling for two separate assessments. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee following the decision of this court in CIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath [ 1977] 106 ITR 342. The said decision was overruled in Vishwanath Seth v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 249 (All) [FB]. Having regard to the said Full Bench decision and in view of the provisions of Section 187(2) of the Act, we must answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.