Om Prakash, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the assessee for quashing the assessment order dated. November 8, 1979 (annexure 1 to the writ petition), and the order dated March 20, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax tinder Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act of 1961"), which has been filed in original. The short question for consideration in this case is whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in making a single assessment for 19(17?) months by the order dated November 8, 1979. The assessee followed the Diwali year but later on made a request for change in the previous year from Diwali year to financial year. On the order-sheet of the Income-tax Officer on November 9, 1979, the following note was given: "The 'a' has claimed change in the previous year from Diwali year to financial year which is allowed on the condition that the income of the previous year Diwali, 1975, to March 31, 1977, will be assessed in the assessment year 1977-78. The 'a' has accepted this condition." From a perusal of the above reproduced order-sheet in which the letter "a" stands for the assessee, it appears that the change in the previous year from Diwali year to the financial year was allowed on the condition that income of the period from Diwali, 1975, to March 31, 1977, would be assessed in the assessment year 1977-78. The order-sheet also showed that the said condition was accepted by the assessee. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer made the assessment for the entire period in a single assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 1977-78. The legal question that has been raised by the assessee-petitioner is whether an assessment for the period exceeding the previous year could be legally made by the Income-tax Officer, THIS question is not res integra, as that has been decided in the case Esthwri Aswathaiah v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 411. In the said authority, the Supreme Court held that where the Income-tax Officer accords his consent to a change of the previous year, he has ample power to impose the condition that the full period from end of the "previous year" for the preceding year's assessment to the end of the new accounting year should be taken as the previous year for the current assessment year. In view of this authority, the condition imposed by the Income-tax Officer was fully justifiable and a single assessment for the period exceeding the previous year (twelve months) could have been legally made.
(2.) SRI R.V. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that the firms were reconstituted thrice with different combinations and the petitioner has been agitating the question that as there were three separate entities, one single assessment for the entire period should not have been made on them and each entity should have been assessed for its own broken period. He further says that the question is still pending before the Supreme Court whether on these facts, there will be a change in the constitution or dissolution of the firm and if the Supreme Court ultimately decides that there was no change in the constitution within the meaning of Section 187 of the Act of 1961, but a dissolution of the firm and separate assessment should have been made, then the petitioner should be given the benefit of that order. If the Supreme Court hands over a decision on this question in favour of the assessee, then the petitioner may make an application for rectification of the instant order as the law permits. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.;