Judgment SHAH ( 1 ) HAKAM Mal Tani Mal, a Hindu undivided family was assessed to-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918, in respect of income from business, inter alia, in timber, at Abdullapur. In 1934 there was a partition of the Hindu undivided family, and five members of that family entered into a partnership to carry on in the name of M/s. Hakam Mal Tani Mal the business which was originally carried on by the undivided family. Accounts of this firm were settled till 31/03/1939, and the firm was dissolved. The timber business of the firm was taken over by two partners of the firm-Gajjan Mal and Jodha Mal, who entered into an agreement of partnership to carry on the business in the name of R. B. Jodha Mal Kulthiala hereinafter called the assessee. An instrument of partnership recording the terms of the partnership and reciting the dissolution of the earlier partnership was executed on 29/06/1939. The assessee was dissolved in March 1948. ( 2 ) IN assessment proceeding for 1943-44 the assessee contended that the firm Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal was dissolved on 31/03/1939, before the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 7 of 1939 had come into force and the first succession to the business after 1/04/1939 was in March 1943, when the assessee was dissolved and on that account the assessee was entitled to relief under S. 25 (3), or in the alternative under S. 25 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment without giving to the assessee the benefit of sub-ss. (3) or (4) of S. 25 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order holding that succession to the family firm Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal took place on 1/04/1939, and that firm alone was entitled to relief under S. 25 (4) and to the second succession which took place on 1/04/1943, after Act 7 of 1939 was brought into force relief under S. 25 (4) was not admissible. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal agreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hakam Mal Tani Mal took place on 1/04/1939, and that firm alone was entitled to relief under S. 25 (4) and to the second succession which took place on 1/04/1943, after Act 7 of 1939 was brought into force relief under S. 25 (4) was not admissible. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal agreed with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter as directed by the High Court of Punjab under S. 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and submitted the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court: whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee firm (R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala, Abdullapur Depot, Simla) was not entitled to the benefit provided in S. 25 (3) or 25 (4) of the Income-tax Act, in relation to the assessment in question? THE High Court held that the assessee was carrying on business when Act 7 of 1939 was brought into operation and was on that account entitled to the benefit of S. 25 (4) of the Act. With certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (4) was inserted in S. 25 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 7 of 1939. It provides: where the person who was at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 (VII of 1939), carrying on any business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the income, profits and gains of the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such succession, and such person any further claim that the income, profits and gains of the previous year shall be deemed to have been the income, profits and gains of the said period. Where any such claim is made, an assessment shall be made on the basis of the income, profits and gains of the said period, and if an amount of tax has already been paid in respect of the income, profits and gains of the previous year exceeding the amount payable on the basis of such assessment, a refund shall be given of the difference: PROVIDED. . . . . . ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the Hindu undivided family of Hakam Mal Tani Mal was taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act. 1918, in respect of the timber business and Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal succeeded to that business in 1934. Accounts of Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal were settled on 31/03/1939, and the business in timber which was carried on by that firm was taken over by the assessee. The departmental authorities held that the assessee was at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 7 of 1939 not carrying on business, and that I succeeded to the business on 1/04/1943. the High Court disagreed with that view and opined that the assessee was at the commencement of Act 7 of 1939 carrying on business, and correctness of that opinion is challenged in this appeal. ( 5 ) THE Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 7 of 1939 was brought into force on 1/04/1939. S. 5 (3) of the General Clauses Act 19 of 1897 provides that unless the contrary is expressed, a Central Act or Regulation shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement. Act 7 of 1939 must, therefore be deemed to have come into operation at a point of time immediately on the expiration of 31/03/1939. The assessee contends, and the contention has found favour with the High Court, that the assessee was carrying on business at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 7 of 1939. In support of the plea of the assessee reliance was placed only upon the instrument of partnership which was executed on 29/06/1939. The question in dispute must, therefore, be determined on a true interpretation of the terms of the instrument of partnership. In support of the plea of the assessee reliance was placed only upon the instrument of partnership which was executed on 29/06/1939. The question in dispute must, therefore, be determined on a true interpretation of the terms of the instrument of partnership. Insofar as it is material, the instrument recites: we, R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala son of Lala Gopi Mal Sahib Sud of the one part and Gajjan Mal Kuthiala son of Lala Hakam Mal Sahib Sud Kuthiala of the other part, residents of Haroli, District Hoshiarpur and presently of Simla. WHEREAS we, the deponent, were partners and shareholders in the firm of Lala Hakam Mal Tani Mal, Simla, and all the partners of firm Lala Hakam Mal Tani Mal understood and settled their accounts upto the 31st of March 1939, on the he 31he 31st of March 1939, and all the partners have become separate from the 1st of April 1939, and the business at Abdullapur in the name of firm Hakam Mal Tani Mal and R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala has fallen to our share to run which we have by means of an oral agreement constituted a separate partnership styled R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala, Abdullapur from the 1st of April 1939. Now the said oral (agreement) is being reduced to writing and we agreed that: THE instrument of partnership in the first instance recites that the accounts of Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal were settled on 31/03/1939 and upto 31/03/1939. It is then recited that all the partners had become separate from 1/04/1939. This is an ambiguous recital: it may mean that the dissolution had taken place on 1/04/1939, i. e. , the business had continued for the whole or a part of the day on 1/04/1939, or it may mean that from the end of 31/03/1939, there had been separation. When a deed recites that a transaction is effective from a particular date it has to be determined in the context in which that expression occurs, whether the date mentioned has to be excluded or to be included. The recitals in the instrument that the accounts were settled upto 31/03/1939, and that the partners had become separate, would imply that the firm of Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal did not do business after 31/03/1939. The recitals in the instrument that the accounts were settled upto 31/03/1939, and that the partners had become separate, would imply that the firm of Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal did not do business after 31/03/1939. The date of the oral agreement constituting a separate partnership of the assessee is not out in the instrument, and there is no other evidence in that behalf. But the assessee was constituted to carry on the timber business allotted to it at the time of dissolution from 1/04/1939. The timber business was an old and a running business, and an intention to maintain continuity of the business and its transactions may reasonably be attributed to the assessee. It must, therefore, be held that the assessee commenced doing business immediately after the dissolution of the firm Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal became effective. In the absence of other evidence, it may be held that the business of Messrs. Hakam Mal Tani Mal continued till the midnight of 31/03/1939, and immediately thereafter the business of the assessee commenced. ( 6 ) THE partnership, therefore, came into being at the precise point of time at which the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 7 of 1939 came into force and it could not be said that the assessee was not carrying on business at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 7 of 1939. The High Court was, therefore, in our judgment, right in holding that the assessee was entitled on the dissolution of that firm in March 1943 to the benefit of S. 25 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act. ( 7 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .