B. S. DHILLON, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 105 to 108 of 1975 as the questions of fact and law arising out of these references are common. The following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : Income-tax References Nos. 105 and 106 of 1975. "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The tribunal was right in holding that Shri Sohan Lal, son of Shri Bakshi Ram, deceased, was competent to file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246 of the Income-tax Act against the order of the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(3) and under section 185(1)(b) directing him to decide the case afresh ?" Income-tax References Nos. 107 and 108 of 1975. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Shri Sohan Lal, son of Shri Bakshi Ram deceased, was competent to file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Officer ?
(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(3) and under section 185(1)(b) and directing him to decide the case afresh ? The facts giving rise to these references are that the firm known as M/s Amin Chand and Sons, Phillaur, in I. T. Rs. Nos. 105 and 106 of 1975, and the firm known as M/s. Landro Engineering and Foundry Works, Phillaur, in I. T. Rs Nos. 107 and 108 of 1975, had Shri Bakshi Ram as one of their partners. Sh. Bakshi Ram served a notice of dissolution of the firms on January 30, 1967, and, thereafter, filed a suit on October 3, 1967, against the other partners for the rendition of accounts after dissolution of the partnerships. Bakshi ram died on February 4, 1968, and his son, Sh. Sohan Lal, and other legal representatives were impleaded as plaintiffs. In view of cl. 18 of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1960, the disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitrators, Shri Viryam Singh and Shri Jinender Kumar. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the following question was referred to the senior Sub-judge, Jullundur, under s. 18(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 : "Whether Sohan Lal is competent to proceed with the case and entitled to any relief under the partnership deed. It is therefore, urged that, as a special case, an opinion may be given whether Sohan Lal has acquired the status as required by the partnership deeds on the file." The learned Senior Sub-Judge expressed the view that the partnership between the deceased and the defendants being not a partnership at will it still endures notwithstanding the notice of dissolution given by the deceased.
(3.) THE order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge was challanged before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge. After the death of Bakshi Ram on February 4, 1968, a new deed of partnership was drawn up on March 12, 1968, according to which Shri Shiv Dayal Shri Kishan Chand and Shri Gurpal Singh (minor) were admitted as partners. An application for registration of this firm was filed on March 29, 1968 in Form No. 11-A which was signed by Shri Shiv Dayal and Kishan Chand. Another application dated March 28, 1968, in Form No 11-A was filed on May 16, 1969 according to which Bakshi Ram, Shiv Dayal and Kishan Chand were shown as partners. The constitution of the firm with effect from February 5, 1968, was shown to be Shiv Dayal 38% Kishan chand 32% and Bakshi Ram 30%.;