| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1964 SLG 524 1964 SLD 524 (1964) 54 ITR 755 (1965) 11 TAX 77 |
Allahabad High Court
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 627 OF 1961, APRIL 28, 1964
M.C. DESAI, CJ AND R.S. PATHAK, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 627 OF 1961, APRIL 28, 1964
M.C. DESAI, CJ AND R.S. PATHAK, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Sahu Rajeshwar Nath
v.
Income Tax Officer
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Pathak, J - This special appeal arises out of a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant, Sahu Rajeshwar Nath, was a partner in a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Regal Dehydrating Company, Meerut. In the petition he alleged that he had sold his share to one Ram Chander on January 15, 1945. It appears that the firm was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1945-46 on December 9, 1952. Subsequently, the appellant was required by the Naib Tahsildar (Collection) to pay up the amount of income-tax, and the appellant says that it was then for the first time that he came to know that the firm had been assessed. It is said that no notice was given to him of the assessment proceedings against the firm or of the assessment order made consequent to those proceedings. The appellant challenges the demand of income-tax made upon him on the ground that he was not a partner when the assessment was made and that having sold his interest in the partnership firm he was not liable to any income-tax liability assessed after such transfer, and the demand made upon him was without jurisdiction. The respondents admit that the appellant had executed the sale deed on January 15, 1945, in favour of Ram Chander but asserts that nevertheless he continued to be a partner of the firm, and that he was liable to pay the income-tax assessed upon the firm. The petition was dismissed on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved in its decision and that in any event every partner was liable jointly and severally in respect of the tax due from the firm. From the affidavits filed by the parties, it is apparent that the respondents do not admit that the interest of the appellant was transferred to Ram Chander. Reference has been made to the fact that a partnership deed dated March 5, 1945, recites that Ram Chander left the partnership firm at the end of the firm's accounting period ending Diwali, 1944, but it was not comprehensible- ",..how Sri Ram Chander could go out of partnership with effect from Kartik B. 15 St. 2001, as disclosed in the partnership deed when he was shown having been admitted to the partnership, long…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492