M.Katju, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act by which the impugned order of the Tribunal, dt. 26th Aug., 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. 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 s. 132 of the IT Act in connection with the firm, its partners and director of the company of this group in November 1998 (sic). As a result of this search the firm filed a revised return on 27th March, 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 26th Sept., 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 27th March, 1989, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under s. 147/148 of the IT Act. The respondent-assessee furnished returns in response to the notice under s. 148 under protest. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) by which the AO 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 CIT(A).
(3.) ON appeal the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the reassessments were quashed. It has been observed in para 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 s. 155(1) of the IT Act and not s. 147. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Sec. 155(1) of the IT Act states as follows : "Other amendments.--(1) 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, s. 154, S. 250, S. 254, S. 260, S. 262, S. 263 or S. 264, or (c) on any order passed under sub-s. (4) of s. 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 AO 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 s. 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, the period of four years specified in sub-s. (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." ;