Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The question referred by the Tribunal is as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share income of the assessee from the firm, Credit Transactors, for the period ending April 14, 1967, considered and allocated in the assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1967-68 was assessable in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69." The reference is under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute is about the correctness of the year of accounting in which the share of profit of a partnership firm of which the assessee is a member is included.
(2.) In the statement of case, the facts are stated as under : "The assessment year involved is 1968-69. The assessee is a partner of Credit Transactors. The assessee maintained accounts and the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 ended on December 31, 1967. The previous year of Credit Transactors relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 ended on April 14, 1967. In the first assessment for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee's share of profit was allocated at Rs. 53,697. In his original return for the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee included the share income from the firm in respect of the accounting period of the firm ending on April 14, 1967. In his original return for the assessment year 1967-68, he did not include that share income. He, however, submitted revised returns for both the years and in the revised return for 1967-68, he included the share income from the firm as allocated in firm's assessment for 1967-68 and excluded that share income in the revised return for the assessment year 1968-69. In the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer observed that the share income from the firm for its accounting period ending on April 14, 1967, could not be included in the assessee's assessment for that year. As a result of the above observation, the Income-tax Officer included the share income from the firm in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee objected to the inclusion of the share income from the firm in respect of its accounting period ending on April 14, 1967. According to the assessee, the share income from the firm was to be included in the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 and not in the assessment year 1968-69. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that under Section 3(1)(f), the previous year of the assessee in respect of the share income from the firm was the same as the previous year of the firm and that the previous year must be the financial year preceding the assessment year and that as the firm's previous year ended on April 14, 1967, after March 31, 1967, the assessee's share income from the firm for that period could not be included in the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 and that it was to be included in the assessment year 1968-69.
(3.) It was urged by counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in taking a different assessment year for the assessee from that of the firm. According to him, the object of the provision of Section 3(1)(f) was to have the same assessment year both for a partner and the firm in respect of the same accounting period so that the share income of a partner allocated in one assessment year of the firm should fall in the same assessment of a partner.;