# The Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Sri Shyama Charan Gupta

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-11
- **Case number:** Income Tax Appeal No. 37 of 2000
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-and-another-v-sri-shyama-charan-gupta-39915
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act-
Section
155
(i)-
Reassement of firm- assessing officer
can modify the assessment, but can not
take recourse of section 148.

Held - Para 8

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
order
of
the
partners
accordingly. Hence in our opinion the
Tribunal has correctly held that t he
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.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
6. Thus while it is evident that the
petitioner is a good officer and there is no
adverse
material
against
him,
the
Selection Board has found other officers
having a better record and hence those
officers have been promoted, while
petitioner could not make the grade on his
overall profile as stated in the impugned
order dated 10.6.99 Annexure 20 to the
writ petition. This Court is normally
reluctant to interfere in Army matters, as
that would be bad for the morale of the
Army. This does not of course mean that
this Court can never interfere in Army
matters, but it shall do so only when there
is clear flagrant violation of the Rule or
there is some extreme arbitrariness, which
is not found in this case.

The petition is therefore, dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Income Tax Appeal No. 37 of 2000

Commissioner
of
Income
Tax
and
another

...Appellants
Versus
Sri Shyama Charan Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.N. Mahajan, S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Income
Tax
Act-
Section
155
(i)-
Reassement of firm- assessing officer
can modify the assessment, but can not
take recourse of section 148.

Held - Para 8

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
order
of
the
partners
accordingly. Hence in our opinion the
Tribunal has correctly held that t he
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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This is an appeal under Section
260 A of the Income Tax Act by which
the impugned order of the Income Tax
Appellate
Tribunal
dated
26.8.1999
Annexure 3 to the appeal has been
challenged.

2. We have heard the learned
counsel for the Department as well as of
the assessee and have perused the
impugned order and find no illegality in
the same.

3. The respondent assessee is a
partner in a firm M/s 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
Directors of the Company of this group in
November 1998. As a result of this search
the firm filed a revised return on 27..1989
disclosing an income of Rs. 900890/- 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
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] The Commissioner of Income Tax and another V. Sri Shyama Charan Gupta 151
share in the firm. Since the partners had
not furnished revised returns subsequent
to the furnishing of revised return
27..1989 the assessing officer initiated
reassess 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 () 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 C.I.T. (Appeals).

5. On appeal the Tribunal set aside
the orders of the C.I.T. (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.

Section 155 (1) of the Income Tax states
as follows:
'Where, in respect of any completed
assessment of a particular in a firm for the
assessment year commencing on Ist 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]

[(b)] on any order passed under sub
section (4) of Section 245 D on the
application made by the firm. )

7. 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
order of the partners accordingly. Hence
in our opinion the Tribunal has correctly
held that t he 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.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
9. We find no illegality in the
impugned order of the Tribunal. The
appeal is dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.2.20033

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2003

Deepak Kumar

...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Kamal Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
children) Act, 2000- if the release is
refused on these ground the court should
record finding as to whether any such
ground exists or not the impugned order
does not show any such ground except
that it is against law. The impugned
order has been passed in utter disregard
of section 12 of the Act.

Held- Para 6

The revision is therefore, allowed. The
revisionist shall be released on bail on
his furnishing two sureties and personal
bond
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Magistrate concerned.

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. The present revision has been
filed against the order dated 17.12.2002
passed by Additional Session Judge I
Baghpat refusing bail application number
1114 of 2002 moved by revisionist under
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act 2000, (hereinafter
referred to as Act).

2. The brief facts giving rise to this
revision are that on 19.6.2002 revisionist
Deepak Kumar committed rape on Km.
Ujma Praveen. The revisionist was
arrested and he moved for bail which was
rejected. The revisionist approached this
Court by filing criminal revision no. 2888
of 2002 which was disposed of by this
Court by order dated 15.11.2002 directing
the Sessions Judge to decide the bail
application on merit by exercising his
power vested on him by Section 6 (2) of
the Act keeping in view the provisions of
Section 12 of the Act. After the remand of
the case and the above direction by this
Court the Sessions Judge transferred the
bail application to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge I, who rejected the bail
application hence this revision.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
perused the impugned order. This Court
has directed to decide the matter keeping
in view the provisions of Section 12 of the
Act. Section 12 of the Act reads as
follows :

12. Bail of Juvenile-
(1) when any person accused of a
bailable or non bailable offence and
apparently a juvenile is arrested or
detained or appears or is brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
in any other law for the time being In
force, be released on bail with or without
surety but he shall not be so released if
there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring