Thereafter as directed by the High Court of Punjab under s. 66 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and submitted the following ques tion of law for the opinion of the High Court Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is companyrect in law in holding that the assessee firm R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala, Abdullapur Depot, Simla was number entitled to the benefit provided in Section 25 3 or 25 4 of the Income tax Act, in relation to the assessment in question ?
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 14, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The assessee was dissolved in March 1943.
An instrument of partnership recording the terms of the partnership and reciting the dissolution of the earlier partnership was executed on June 29, 1939.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, T. A. Ramachandran, O. C. Mathur for the respondent.
T. Desai, R. Ganapathy Iyer, Gopal Singh, B.R.G.K. Achar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
With certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred.
95 of 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Hakam Mal Tani Mal a Hindu undivided family was assessed to tax under the Indian Income tax Act, 1918, in respect of income from business, inter alia, in timber at Abdullapur.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
23 of 1958.
In 1934 there was a partition of the Hindu undivided family, and five members of that family entered into a partnership to carry on in the name of M s Hakam Mal Tani Mal the business which was originally carried on by the undivided family.
The Indian Income tax Amendment Act 7 of 1939 was brought into force on April 1, 1939.
The Income tax Officer companypleted the assessment without giving to the assessee the benefit of sub ss.
In assessment proceedings for 1943 44 the assessee companytended that the firm Messrs Hakam Mal Tani Mal was dissolved on March 31, 1939, before the Income tax Amendment Act 7 of 1939 had companye into force and the first succession to the business after April 1, 1939 was in March 1943, when the assessee was dissolved and on that account the assessee was entitled to relief under S. 25 3 , or in the alternative under s. 25 4 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
The Appel late Assistant Commissioner companyfirmed the order holding that succession to the family firm Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal took place on April 1, 1939, and that firm alone was entitled to relief under s. 25 4 and to the second succession which took place on April 1, 1943, after Act 7 of 1939 was brought into force relief under s. 25 4 was number admissible.
3 or 4 of s. 25 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
The timber business of the firm was taken over by two partners of the firm Gajjan Mal and Jodha Mal, who entered into an agreement of partnership to carry on the business in the name of R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala hereinafter called assessee.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal agreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Accounts of this firm were settled till March 31, 1939, and the firm was dissolved.
