Karnataka High Court
K.L. Parvathamma vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 5 April, 1972
Equivalent citations: [1974]93ITR138(KAR), [1974]93ITR138(KARN)
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated January 13, 1969, made by the Income-tax Officer, Assessment No. 3, Bangalore (first respondent), and the order dated April 18, 1970, made by the third respondent - Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. There was a firm styled as "K. Shivappa and Sons". That consisted of six partners. The petitioner was one of the partners of the said firm. The firm was dissolved on March 31, 1968, the intimation of which was given to the Income-tax officer. After the dissolution of the firm, the Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on July 8, 1968, to one K. L. Mohan, who was one of the partners of the firm.
3. The main contention of Sri B. V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that after the dissolution of the firm, notices ought to have been served on all the partners of the partners, the assessment made is not valid and the same cannot be enforced against the petitioner.
4. In our opinion, there is no substance in that ground. Sub-section (2) of section 283 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is an effective answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel. The sub-section read :
"Where a firm or other association of persons is dissolved, notices under this Act in respect of the income of the firm or association may be served on any person who was a partner (not being a minor) or member of the association, as the case may be, immediately before its dissolution."
5. Sri Katageri argued that the expression "any person" found in the above sub-section should be construed to mean "all persons" who are partners of the firm. The learned counsel also relied on the provisions of section 282 of the Act. We are unable to understand how section 282 is helpful. Sub-section (2) of section 282 provides that any notice in the case of a firm may be served on any member of the firm. There was no provision the 1922 Act corresponding to sub-section (2) of section 283. It is clear from section 283 that before dissolution any notice in the case of a firm may be served on any member of the firm. Sub-section (2) of section 283 provides that notwithstanding the dissolution of the firm. Notices under the Act in respect of the income of the firm may be served on any person who was a partner, not being a minor.
6. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee, Rs. 100.
7. Writ Petition dismissed.