JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
When notice sent by the registered post could not be served on the assessee the standing counsel was asked to get the assessee served through the Department and file an affidavit of service. The affidavit of service has been filed by the standing counsel which shows that the assessee was served personally. None appears on behalf of the assessee and we have, therefore, heard only learned standing counsel.
2. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the ITO to pass two assessment orders for different periods on the basis of two returns of income filed by the assessee ?”
3. The facts as found in the order passed by the Tribunal are that on the death of one of the partners namely Sri Kailash Nath Khanna on 5th May, 1975, the firm stood dissolved by virtue of the provisions contained in s. 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, as there was no contract to the contrary that there will be no dissolution of the firm on the death of one of the partners. It is well settled that in case of dissolution of firm, two assessments have to be made-one for the period anterior to dissolution and other for the subsequent period.
We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
4. For these reasons, we answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.