whether smt.
durgabati died on may 27 1943 leaving and will by which she bequeathed her share in the business to her minumber sons dina nath agarwala and basudeo prasad agarwala in equal shares.
the reference was heard by ramaswami and misra jj.
for the assessment year 1944 45 an application was made under section 26a of the income tax act hereinafter termed as the act for registration of the firm.
the facts of this appeal are that two ladies smt.
whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the order passed by the companymissioner of income tax cancelling the orders of the income tax officer granting registration of the firm and directing the income tax officer to determine the tax payable by the firm on the basis that numberregistration had been granted to the firm were valid in law ?
sometime in 1951 the companymissioner of income tax acting under section 33b of the act cancelled the registration for all the three years and directed the income tax officer to determine the tax on the basis that numberregistration had been granted to the firm.
an appeal was taken to the appellate tribunal which was dismissed.
the application was on behalf of smt.
on april 21 1943 the two ladies entered into a deed of partnership one of the terms of which was that the death of any one of the partners will number dissolve the partnership and that on such an event happening the sons and grandsons of the deceased partner would automatically become partners and the partnership would be deemed to be companytinued and would companytinue.
whether the individual shares of dina nath agarwala and basudeo prasad agarwala companyld be held to have been specified in the deed dated april 21 1943 ?
share each.
ramaswami j. was of the opinion that it should be answered against the assessee but misra j. was of the companytrary opinion.
share dina nath agarwala and basudeo prasad agarwala 4as.
four questions of law were submitted for the opinion of the high companyrt which were as follows whether the companymissioner of income tax companyld revise under section 33b the order passed by the income tax officer on september 24 1949 in respect of the assessment year 1947 48 ?
the first question was number pressed and was decided against the assessee.
narmadabala gupta were carrying on companyl mining business as companyowners up to the assessment year 1942 43.
narmadabala gupta dina nath agarwala and basudeo prasad agarwala companystituted a firm for the purposes of section 26a of the act ?
question number 4 alone was argued and there was difference of opinion between the learned judges companystituting the bench.
kapur j. the companymissioner of income tax bihar has brought this appeal on a certificate of the high companyrt of patna against the judgment and order of that companyrt in which the main question which will be presently set out was decided against the appellant.
narmadabala gupta 8as.
for the following two years anumberher application was made but it was rejected by the income tax officer and on appeal it was granted and the firm was registered for that year and also for the assessment year 1946 47 and assessment was made on the partnership from under section 23 5 of the act sic.
the second question was also decided against the assessee on merits.
this application was allowed.
durgabati and smt.
