Skip to content


Kurumberhall Estate a Vs. State of Karnataka (Through the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Petition No. 247 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1984]148ITR577(KAR); [1984]148ITR577(Karn)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 184(7)
AppellantKurumberhall Estate "a"
RespondentState of Karnataka (Through the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax)
Appellant AdvocateG. Sarangan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD. Bhoopathy, Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 125: [k.l. manjunath, j] claim for maintenance held, widowed daughter-in-law and her minor daughter cannot claim maintenance from her in laws under this section, in view of specific provisions under section 19 of the hindu adoption & maintenance act, 1956. hindu adoptions and maintenance act,1956[c.a.no.78/1956] -- section 19: [k.l. manjunath, j] claim for maintenance held, widowed daughter-in-law and her minor daughter cannot claim maintenance from her in laws under section 125 of cr.p.c., in view of specific provisions under section 19 of the hindu adoption & maintenance act, 1956. - 5. we fail to understand the reasoning behind the order of the commissioner. we fail to understand who else could sign form no......the assessment order, for the year 1975-76 and also cancelling the registration of the assessee-firm. a firm styled as 'kurumberhalli estate 'a'' was evidenced by an instrument of partnership, dated april 8, 1969, with effect from april 1, 1969. it comprised of four partners, namely, (1) m c mathew, (2) m c george, (3) m m chandy and (4) chandy george. the firm was granted registration under s. 29 of the act. 2. under clause (13) of the deed of partnership, it was provided that in the case of death of any partner, the representatives in the interest of the deceased partner shall be entitled to become a partner on the same terms as the deceased partner. 3. on february 16, 1975, m c george died leaving behind his wife. by reason of cl.(13) in the deed of partnership, she, as of right,.....
Judgment:

Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. This revision arises out of the order of the Commissioner, dated August 25, 1980, made under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act'), setting aside the assessment order, for the year 1975-76 and also cancelling the registration of the assessee-firm. A firm styled as 'Kurumberhalli Estate 'A'' was evidenced by an instrument of partnership, dated April 8, 1969, with effect from April 1, 1969. It comprised of four partners, namely, (1) M C Mathew, (2) M C George, (3) M M Chandy and (4) Chandy George. The firm was granted registration under s. 29 of the Act.

2. Under clause (13) of the deed of partnership, it was provided that in the case of death of any partner, the representatives in the interest of the deceased partner shall be entitled to become a partner on the same terms as the deceased partner.

3. On February 16, 1975, M C George died leaving behind his wife. By reason of cl.(13) in the deed of partnership, she, as of right, become a partner taking the share which her husband was entitled to. On June 20, 1975, an application for renewal of registration in Form No. 8 was presented before the assessing officer and that application was signed by all the then partners including Mrs. M C George although the late M C George was shown as on of the partners. That application was accepted and renewal of registration was granted. The firm was assessed to tax as a registered firm.

4. The Commissioner initiated proceedings under s. 35 of the Act to revise the said assessment. He was of the opinion that since M C George died on February 16, 1975, the renewal application in Form No. 8 could not have been signed by Mrs. M C George since the law requires that all the partners then existing ought to have signed personally. He, accordingly, held that the renewal of registration granted on the application signed by Mrs. M C George was invalid.

5. We fail to understand the reasoning behind the order of the Commissioner. M C George died on February 16, 1975. Form No. 8 for renewal of registration of the firm was filed on June 20, 1975. Upon the death of M C George, his wife has legitimate right to become a partner with the same rights and liabilities of her husband under cl.(13) of the deed of partnership. In exercise of that right quite naturally she alone could sign Form No. 8 and she did sign that form. She did not sign on behalf of her husband. She signed that form personally as partner. The Commissioner could not have found fault with that form on the ground that Mrs. M C George could not have signed for the deceased partner. We fail to understand who else could sign Form No. 8 presented on June 20, 1975, when M C George was not at all alive.

6. It is also necessary to state that upon the death of M C George there was no dissolution of the firm. The firm was entitled to continue with the legal representative of the deceased as partner notwithstanding the death of one of the partners. Secondly, the assessment was required to be made in respect of the agricultural income of that firm for the crop of the entire year of 1974-75 and not for part of the year before the death of M. C. George. We, therefore, find there was no illegality in the application for the renewal of the registration of the firm.

7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the assessment order is restored.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //