- (1.) THIS reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following questions of law relating to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 pertaining to the same assessee, namely ; "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that separate assessments should be made for the broken periods November 14, 1974, to June 5, 1975, and June 7, 1975, to November 3, 1975 ?
(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that separate assessments should be made for the broken periods November 4, 1975, to March 18, 1976, and March 20, 1976, to October 22, 1976 ?" 2. Admittedly, there is a contract to the contrary as envisaged by Section 42 (c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, to the effect that the partnership would not stand dissolved but shall continue with the remaining partners together with the heir of the deceased partner. In the present case, one out of several partners died and the reconstituted firm was continued with the surviving partners together with the heirs of the deceased. Accordingly, there was no dissolution of the firm as a result of the contract to the contrary contained in the partnership deed. Such a case falls within the ambit of Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since it is a case of a mere change in constitution of the firm and not of succession of one firm by another. This is the view taken by us in CIT v. Sri Krishna Re-rolling Mills, 1989 175 ITR 366 (supra), D. B. I. T. Reference No. 19 of 1985 decided on May 5, 1988, relying on an earlier decision of this court in CIT v. Gharsana Beriwal Road Works, 1988 170 ITR 500 and the recent Supreme Court decision in Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT, 1988 169 ITR 761 (SC). Following these decisions, it must be held that it is a case governed by Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, only one assessment was required to be made for the entire period. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in directing separate assessments to be made for the broken periods for both the assessment years. No costs.;