Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act and the question on which we are required to express our opinion has been formulated in the following words: "In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the firm as constituted on 31st May 1947, entitled to the relief under section 25(4) of the Indian Income-Tax Act?"
(2.) Section 25(4) is as follows: . "Where the person who was at the commencement of the Indian Income-Tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 (VII of 1939), carrying on any business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the income, profits and gains of the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such succession, and such person may further claim that the income, profits and gains of the previous year shall be deemed to have been the income, profits and gains of the said period. Where any such claim is made, an assessment shall be made on the basis of the income, profits and gains of the, said period, and, if an amount of tax has already been paid in respect of the income, profits and gains of the previous year exceeding the amount payable on the basis of such assessment, a refund shall be given of the difference."
(3.) The assessee is a partnership concern. When the tax was paid under the Act of 1918 it consisted of three partners: Mathew, Figgis and Notley. The name of the firm was A. W. Figgis & Co., and the business was that of tea brokers. There were several changes in the constitution of the firm as noted below: JUDGEMENT_677_AIR(CAL)_1952Html1.htm;