ORDER Prakash Krishna, J.
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The following question of law has been referred to this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he directed the Income Tax Officer to frame another assessment on the reconstituted firm for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1976 ?"
2. The assessment year involved is 1976-77. Originally the assessee-firm consisted of six partners including three minors Km. Manprit, Dilprit Kaur and Inderpit Kaur. A fresh partnership deed was drawn with effect from 30-9-1975. Harjeet Singh, Bhajan Singh and Smt. Amrit Kaur, who were also the partners in the old firm continued to be partners in the firm even after 30-9-1975. The aforesaid three minors retired from the partnership. Section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act provides that on retirement of partners, the old firm continues as it is a case of reconstitution of firm.
2. The assessment year involved is 1976-77. Originally the assessee-firm consisted of six partners including three minors Km. Manprit, Dilprit Kaur and Inderpit Kaur. A fresh partnership deed was drawn with effect from 30-9-1975. Harjeet Singh, Bhajan Singh and Smt. Amrit Kaur, who were also the partners in the old firm continued to be partners in the firm even after 30-9-1975. The aforesaid three minors retired from the partnership. Section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act provides that on retirement of partners, the old firm continues as it is a case of reconstitution of firm.
3. The aforesaid controversy has been set at rest by a division bench of our court in the case of CIT v. Ram Jas Rai Askaran Das (1996) 218 ITR 18 (All).
3. The aforesaid controversy has been set at rest by a division bench of our court in the case of CIT v. Ram Jas Rai Askaran Das (1996) 218 ITR 18 (All).
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment the question referred is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Only one assessment has to be made for the entire previous year relevant for the assessment year 1976-77.
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment the question referred is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Only one assessment has to be made for the entire previous year relevant for the assessment year 1976-77.