He came to the companyclusion that the business was exclusive that of Pulliah.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.C. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEGDE, J.These are appeals by Special Leave.
But in the body of his order he specifically held that the business.
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the question for companysideration was whether the firm in question was a genuine firm.
D. Karkhanis, and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for the respondent.
In the firms appeals, he directed the Income tax Officer to register, that firm and in Pulliahs appeal he set aside the assessment made on him.
He accordingly assessed Pulliah as an individual in respect of the income earned in that business.
After this order was made, the Income tax Officer proceeded to assess the firm in respect of the income earned by that firm during the assessment years 1954 55, 1955 56 and 1956 57 When the Income tax Officer initiated proceedings against the firm for the purpose of assessment, the firm resisted the same taking the plea that the proceedings in question is barred by limitation under section 34 3 of the Act.
The reference in question relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1954 55, 1955 56 and 1956 The question of law referred by the Tribunal is Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on the firms, for each of the assessment years 1954 55, 1955 56 and 1956 57, are valid in law ?
It also applied for registration under section 26A. The Income tax Officer rejected that application holding that there was numbergenuine firm.
If the firm was a genuine firm, it necessarily followed that Pulliah was wrongly assessed.
Up to and including the assessment year 1953 54 business with which we are companycerned in this case, was carried on by Vadde Pallaiah.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner after examining the material before him came to the companyclusion that the firm in question was a genuine firm.
share and out of the remaining three partners two had 3 as.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.1682 to 1684 of 1970.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal both the Commis sioner of Income tax as well as the assessee moved the Tribunal under section 66 i of the Act to refer certain questions of law to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The Tribunal partly accepted the appeal of the Income tax Officer It came to the companyclusion that the assessment in respect of assessment years 1955 56 and 1956 57 are number barred in view of the Second Proviso to section 34 3 of the Act.
T. Desai, B. D. Sharma, S. P. Nayar, and R. N. Sachthey, ,for the, appellant.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the companytention of the, assessee and set aside the order of the Income tax Officer.
As against that order the Income tax Officer went up in appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
On March 20 3 1953 he entered into a partnership companysisting of himself and three others.
in question was carried on by the firm and number by Pulliah.
He was assessed as an individual.
That partnership was known as M s. Vadde Pulliah Co. In that partnership Pulliah had 8 as.
The Tribunal submitted the question set out earlier to the High Court.
But it opined that the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1954 55 was barred by limitation.
Aggrieved by that order the firm went up in appeal to the Appellate, Assistant Commissioner.
For the assessment years 1954 55, 1955 56 and 1956 57, this firm filed returns of income as a firm.
He rejected that companytention.
In the operative portion of his order he stated thus The Income tax Officer is directed to adopt the, companyrect, share of income of the appellant from this firm.
share.
As against that order both the firm as well as Pulliah went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
share each and o ne had 2 as.
Consequently, he allowed the appeal of the firm as well as that of Pulliah.
If, on the other hand, the firm was number a genuine firm, Pulliah was rightly assessed.
4 of 1966.
