With effect from April 28, 1952, the business was carried on by a partnership companystituted by Baidyanath Roy and Bijali Kanti Roy under an instrument dated August 27, 1952.
Narsaraju, S. K. Aiyar, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
K. Daphtary, Narain Rao, V. D. Narayan and D. Goburdhun, for the respondent.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 27, 1964 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal companyfirmed the order.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the companytention of the respondent that the order imposing penalty upon the firm after the original firm was dissolved was without jurisdiction.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Indetermining the taxable income of the respondent firm for the assessment year 1948 49 the Income tax Officer added to the income returned a sum of Rs.
299 of 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
During the previous year 1947 there was numberinstrument of partnership in existence, but the terms of the oral partnership were the same as set out in the partnership deed dated October 17, 1949.
The business of the firm was companytinued with effect from July 8, 1951 by the new firm as successor to the business of the old firm.
The order was companyfirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and by the Tribunal.
1,60,000 as undisclosed receipts.
Judicial Case No.
60,000 as penalty.
The High Court called for a supplementary statement of the case and pursuant thereto the Tribunal submitted a statement on the specified points raised by the order of the High Court that The firm which carried on the business during the calendar year 1947 was dissolved on July 7, 1951 when Butto Kristo Roy, one of the partners, died.
2456 of 1966.
The Income tax Officer had in the meantime companymenced a proceeding for the levy of penalty and in exercise of the power under s. 28 1 c of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 he directed the respondent firm to pay Rs.
The terms of the partnership were the same as set out in the deed dated October 17, 1949 and the partners and their shares were also the same except that Baidyanath Roy took the place of Butto Kristo Roy.
There was numberdissolution of the firm, which was carrying on the business there was only a change in the companystitution of the old firm from April 28, 1952.
