JUDGMENT - CHAGLA, C. J. :

This petition raises a question as to the proper construction of S. 44 of the Income-tax Act. The question comes to be raised under the following circumstances. The petitioner was a partner with three others in the firm of E. Loeffler and Co. which was constituted on 10-6-1947. Among the three other partners was a man by the name of Iyer. This firm was dissolved on 11-9-1950 and the deed of dissolution provided for the business of the firm being continued by Iyer and under that deed Iyer succeeded to the firm and carried on the business of that firm. The firm was a registered firm and it was assessed for the assessment year 1949-50 and the shares of the profits of the four partners were allocated to each one of them under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and each of the partners was! assessed to tax on his share of the profits. The petitioner and the other three partners paid the tax which they were liable to pay in respect of their respective assessments. Iyer failed to do so and the Income-tax Officer served a notice upon the petitioner that the petitioner was liable to pay the lax of Iyer which was in arrears under S. 44 of the Income-tax Act and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document