JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. The assessee is a firm. It consisted of seven partners. The partnership was constituted under a deed of partnership dated February 14, 1971. One of the partners, D. K. Agarwal, died on September 25, 1971. Clause (ii) of the partnership deed provided that the death of a partner shall not result in the dissolution of partnership and that it shall continue notwithstanding the death. Accordingly, the firm continued. A new partnership deed was executed on January 20, 1972, by the remaining partners. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed two returns--one for the period July 1, 1971, to September 25, 1971, and the other for the period September 26, 1971, to March 31, 1972. The Income-tax Officer was, however, of the opinion that it was only a case of reconstitution of firm and, accordingly, clubbed both the periods and made one assessment. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer whereupon the assessee carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed Clause (ii) of the partnership deed and also the fact that no deed of dissolution was executed on the death of Sri D. K. Agarwal and held that it is a case of reconstitution of the firm. Yet it held, following the decision of this court in CIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath [1977] 106 ITR 342 that, even in the case of reconstitution of a firm, there should be two assessments. Thereupon, the Revenue obtained this reference.
2. The decision in Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath's case [1977] 106 ITR 342 (All), has been overruled by a Full Bench of five judges of this court in Vishwanath Seth v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 249. It was held in the Full Bench decision that, in such a case, there ought to be only one assessment.
3. Sri S. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Full Bench decision of this court in Vishwanath Seth's case [1984] 146 ITR 24'9 was disapproved and must be deemed to have been overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Wazid Ali Abid All v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 761. This very contention, it appears, was urged before and considered by a Bench of this court in CIT v. Basant Behari Gopai Behari and Co. (1988] 172 ITR 662. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be treated as having overruled the Full Bench decision in Vishwanath Seth's case [ 1984] 146 ITR 249 (All). The said decision is binding upon us. Even otherwise, we agree with the reasoning of the said Division Bench. The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered with reference to the language of Sub-section (7) of Section 184 which is materially different from the language of Sub-section (2) of Section 187. We, therefore, agree with the Bench decision in CIT v. Basant Behari Gopal Behari and Co.'s case [1988] 172 ITR 662 (All), that the Full Bench decision of this court in Vishutanath Seth [1984] 146 ITR 249 is and continues to be good law even today. We may also mention that in Basant Behari Gopal Behari and Co.'s case [1988] 172 ITR 662, a clause identical to Clause (ii) concerned herein was present and it was held that there ought to be one assessment.
4. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.