JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 26, 1999, annexure 3, to the appeal has been challenged.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the Department as well as of the asses-see and have perused the impugned order and find no illegality in the same.
3. The respondent-assessee is a partner in a firm, Shyam Bidi Works. The original assessment of the firm as well as of the partners was completed. Subsequently, there was a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act in connection with the firm, its partners and the directors of the company of this group in November 1988. As a result of this search, the firm filed a revised return on March 27, 1989 disclosing an income of Rs. 9,00,890 as against the income of Rs. 4,07,380 declared in the original return furnished on September 26, 1984. The assessment of the firm on the basis of the revised return was completed on an income of Rs. 9,00,890 as declared in the revised return. Consequent to the revised assessment of the firm, the assessments of the partners were also sought to be revised by revision of their share in the firm. Since the partners had not furnished revised returns subsequent to the furnishing of revised return on March 27, 1989, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act.
4. The respondent-assessee furnished returns in response to the notice under Section 148 under protest. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) by which the Assessing Officer in addition to revising the assessee's share in the firm made certain additions on account of low household withdrawals. The assessee and other partners challenged the reassessment proceedings as well as addition on account of low household expenses, but their appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. On appeal the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the reassessments were quashed.
6. It has been observed in paragraph 7 of the impugned order of the Tribunal that the assessee has submitted that since his original assessment has been completed his share in the firm should have been revised by invoking the provisions of Section 155(1) of the Income-tax Act and not Section 147. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal.
7. Section 155(1) of the Income-tax Act states as follows :
"Where, in respect of any completed assessment of a partner in a firm for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1992, or any earlier assessment year, it is found-
(a) on the assessment or reassessment of the firm, or
(b) on any reduction or enhancement made in the income of the firm under this Section, Section 154, Section 250, Section 254, Section 260, Section 262, Section 263 or Section 264, or
(c) on any order passed under Sub-section (4) of Section 245D on the application made by the firm, that the share of the partner in the income of the firm has not been included in the assessment of the partner or, if included, is not correct, the Assessing Officer may amend the order of assessment of the partner with a view to the inclusion of the share in the assessment or the correction thereof, as the case may be ; and the provisions of Section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, the period of four years specified in Sub-section (7) of that section being reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the final order was passed in the case of the firm."
8. A perusal of the above provision shows that in case of reassessment of a firm, the Assessing Officer has not only to determine the assessable income of the firm but has also to amend the assessment orders of the partners accordingly. Hence, in our opinion, the Tribunal has correctly held that the Assessing Officer could only take recourse to Section 155 to modify the assessment of the assessee and he could not take recourse to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has also held that the Revenue can revise the shares of the appellants in the firm by invoking the provisions of Section 155(1), if the law so permits.
9. We find no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.