Skip to content


Mobarak Ali Khan and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 96 of 1975
Judge
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)468; [1980]124ITR239(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 185; Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 30(5)
AppellantMobarak Ali Khan and Sons
Respondentincome-tax Officer, A-ward
Appellant AdvocateS.B.L. Srivastava, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....firm attained majority on november 18, 1967. on january 1, 1968, a fresh partnership deed was executed in which the minor ahsan ali khan became a fullfledged partner. the relevant accounting period for the assessment year ended on december 31, 1967. therefore, for purposes of this year, the position was that the minor became major on november 18, 1967, and before he could exercise the option within the given period of six months, the year ended. the position is that till the end of the year in question, there has been no change in the constitutionof the firm as held in the cit v. mathura prasad annoolal : [1978]115itr372(all) . in this view, the firm was entitled to continuance of registration. the tribunal was in error in holding that there has been a change in the constitution of.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. The question refers to the assessment year 1968-69. Ahsan AH Khan who had been admitted to the benefits of the assessee-partnership firm attained majority on November 18, 1967. On January 1, 1968, a fresh partnership deed was executed in which the minor Ahsan Ali Khan became a fullfledged partner. The relevant accounting period for the assessment year ended on December 31, 1967. Therefore, for purposes of this year, the position was that the minor became major on November 18, 1967, and before he could exercise the option within the given period of six months, the year ended. The position is that till the end of the year in question, there has been no change in the constitutionof the firm as held in the CIT v. Mathura Prasad Annoolal : [1978]115ITR372(All) . In this view, the firm was entitled to continuance of registration. The Tribunal was in error in holding that there has been a change in the constitution of the firm. The question of law whether there was a change in the constitution of the assessee-firm in the accounting year is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of our answer to question No. 1, the second question becomes superfluous and the same is returned unanswered.

2. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.


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