VERMA, CJ.—This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the revenue is to answer the following question of law; namely, "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there should be two assessments one for the period 1.4.1973 to 27.7.1973 and the other for the period 28.7.1973 to 31.3.1974 or one assessment under the Act." The relevant assessment year is 1974-75 for which the previous year ended on March 31,1974. The assessee firm M/s Sri Krishna Re-rolling Mills, Jaipur comprised of six partners and was constituted by a partnership deed dated November 25, 1965 (Annexure A). One of the terms in the partnership-deed was that the firm shall not be dissolved by death or retirement or insolvency of any of the partners; and on the death of any partner the surviving partners will include the heir or legal representative of the deceased partner as a partner in that firm. Two of the partners of this firm, namely, Smt. Jai Devi and Munshi Lal Gupta died on July 19,1973 and July 27,1973 respectively, The surviving partners, namely, Shriram Gupta, Vidhyadhar Jaju, Mohanlal Gupta and Ghanshyam Das Mohta continued that partnership taking in Smt. Barfidevi widow of Munshi Lal Gupta and Shriniwas Gupta son of Smt. Jai Devi Gupta as new partners in the firm. A new partnership deed dated November, 2, 1973 (Annexure B) was drawn up describing the four surviving partners as continuing partners and the widow and the son of the two deceased partners as new partners stating clearly in this Deed that it was mutually agreed to continue the partnership taking into it these two new partners and re constituting the Firm with effect from July 28, 1973. Accordingly, there was an express indication in this new Deed (Annexure B) of the continuance of the same firm by the surviving partners along with the widow and the son of the two deceased partners. This partnership-deed also contained a similar term as in the earlier-deed (Anx. A) that the firm will not stand dissolved by death or retirement or insolvency of any of the partners, and on the death of any partner the surviving partners will include the heir of the deceased partner as a partner in the firm. 2. This partnership-deed also contained a similar term as in the earlier-deed (Anx. A) that the firm will not stand dissolved by death or retirement or insolvency of any of the partners, and on the death of any partner the surviving partners will include the heir of the deceased partner as a partner in the firm. 2. The assessee contended that in the relevant year two separate assessments were to be made, one for the period April 1, 1973 to July 27, 1973 and the other for the period July 28, 1973 to March 31, 1974 instead of a single assessment for the entire year. This contention of the assessee was negatived by the Income-tax Officer who held that it was a case of re-constitution or a mere change in the constitution of the firm governed by Section 187(2) of the Act. The assessees appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was rejected but the further appeal to the Tribunal has been allowed. Following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dabi Laxmi Dal Factory Vs. Income-tax Officer (1), the Tribunal has directed the Income-tax Officer to frame two assessments for the aforesaid two periods as claimed by the assessee, treating it to be a case of succession governed by Section 188 of the Act. Hence this reference at the instance of the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gharsana Beriwal Road Works (2) to contend that on account of a contract to the contrary contained in the partnership-deed there was no dissolution of the partnership firm as a result of death of any partner and, therefore, the case falls within the ambit of Section 187(2) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee strenuously urged that there is a finding of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee that there was dissolution of the firm on the death of its two partners notwithstanding a contract to the contrary in the partnership-deed. He argued that this term in the partnership-deed stood superseded by the conduct of the parties who agreed to dissolve the firm as a result of which the Firm was actually dissolved. He argued that this term in the partnership-deed stood superseded by the conduct of the parties who agreed to dissolve the firm as a result of which the Firm was actually dissolved. He argued that in the face of this finding of the Tribunal it must be held that the firm was dissolved on account of which Section 187(2) of the Act has no application- Having heard both the sides we are satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel for the revenue must be accepted. 4. We have already mentioned the specific term in the partnership-deed (Anx. A) dated November 25, 1965 which specifically provides for non-dissolution of the partnership firm on death, retirement or insolvency of any of the partners and further provides for continuance of the same firm by the surviving partners together with the heir of the deceased partner being taken in as a partner. It is the terms of this partnership-deed which governed the case at the time of death of the two partners. Clause (c) of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which lays down the general principle of dissolution of a firm on death of a partner is clearly subject to a contract to the contrary in the terms of partnership. It is, therefore, obvious that as a result of a contract to the contrary in the partnership deed dated November 25, 1965 which provided for continuance of the partnership firm and not its dissolution by death of any partner, the general principle contained in Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act providing for dissolution of the firm on death of a partner was not attracted. Not only this, the new partnership deed dated November 2, 1973 (Anx. B) expressly stated that the surviving partners had mutually agreed to continue the partnership with the two new partners who were heirs of the deceased partners and to reconstitute the firm with effect from July 28, 1973. This statement in the new partnership deed Annexure B" was a reiteration of the consequence of non dissolution of the firm as a result of a contract to the contrary in the earlier partnership deed Annexure A instead of the same amounting to superseding the earlier contract to bring about dissolution as claimed by the learned counsel for the assessee. 5. 5. We find that the Tribunals finding appearing from the Tribunals order Annexure E dated May 31, 1979 is based on an obvious mis-reading of the terms contained in the partnership deed. The Tribunal has held that on the death of the two partners the firm automatically stood dissolved because in the partnership deed there was no contract that after the death of a partner the firm shall not be dissolved. The same thing has been repeated by the Tribunal thereafter by saying that in the partnership deed there was no contract to the contrary that after the death of a partner the firm shall not stand dissolved: and so in view of Section 42 (c) of the Indian Partnership Act after the death of a partner the firm automatically stands dissolved. This is the only basis on which the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the partnership firm stood dissolved on death of the two partners. This finding is not based on any material other than the partnership deed which has undoubtedly been misread. It is incorrect to say that this finding is based on any other evidence as claimed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Such a finding based entirely on an obvious mis-reading of the partnership - deed cannot be treated as a finding of fact in favour of the assessee as contended by the learned counsel for the assessee. The question, therefore, is whether in this situation the decision of this court in Gharsana Beriwal Road Workss case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue is distinguishable for any reason. 6. As already indicated there was a contract to the contrary in the partnership deed as a result of which the partnership firm did not stand dissolved in accordance with the general principle contained in Section 42 (c) of the Indian Partnership Act on the death of two of the six partners. This is also evident from the fact that the surviving four partners continued the partnership together with heirs of the two deceased partners as new partners and said so expressly in the new partnership- deed as earlier stated. In view of this fact there appears to be no reason to hold that the earlier decision of this Court on which learned counsel for the revenue relies is distinguishable for any reason. In view of this fact there appears to be no reason to hold that the earlier decision of this Court on which learned counsel for the revenue relies is distinguishable for any reason. In that decision one of us (J.S. Verma C.J.) speaking for the Division Bench concluded as under : "It may be added that the proviso inserted in sub-section (2) of section 187 of the Act retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, has no application since it excludes from the ambit of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 187 only a case where a firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. In a case like the present where there is no dissolution of the firm on the death of any of its partners on account of a contract to the contrary in the deed of partnership, the said proviso is not attracted." 7. We may now refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Wazid Ali Abid Ali V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow (3), which deals with this question. It was held by the Supreme Court that in all cases dissolution does not take place by death if there is a contract to the contrary and the question to ask is whether there was any contract to the contrary in a given case. Dealing with the facts on which that decision was rendered it was clearly held that on the death of a partner there is no dissolution of the partnership firm if there be an express term to the contrary and the partnership is carried on with the remaining partners together with the heir and representative of the deceased partner. It was expressly held that by virtue of section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a firm was dissolved by the death of a partner but as the section provided, that was subject to the contract between the parties. It was expressly held that by virtue of section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a firm was dissolved by the death of a partner but as the section provided, that was subject to the contract between the parties. Reference was also made in this decision of the Supreme Court to the proviso to Section 187(2) inserted with effect from April 1, 1975 and it was pointed out that this proviso could not be interpreted to mean that in every case where one of the partners died the firm was and must be held to be dissolved; and that language of the proviso was clear and it stated that nothing in clause(a) of Section 187(2) should apply to a case where a firm was dissolved on the death of any of its partners. The Supreme Court held with reference to the facts of one of the appeals disposed of by that decision that so far as the High Court had held that the assessee-firm was not dissolved on the death of one of the partners in view of the terms of the partnership-deed, but there is a change in the constitution of the firm, the High Court was right. After this decision of the Supreme Court it cannot be doubted that the general principle of dissolution of a partnership firm according to section 42(c) of the Partnership Act on the death of a partner is subject to a contract to the contrary where number of surviving partners is two or more. This is the position even after insertion of the proviso to section 187(2) with effect from April 1, 1975. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court and another of the Gujrat High Court which do not require separate consideration, inasmuch as, the Allahabad decision is considered in the Supreme Court decision and the Gujrat decision was subject matter of one of the appeals giving rise to the Supreme Court decision. The Gujrat decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court and it was pointed out that in the facts of that case the partnership firm was dissolved and transactions were carried on there-after by the remaining parties in the course of winding up and for realisation of its dues. The Gujrat decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court and it was pointed out that in the facts of that case the partnership firm was dissolved and transactions were carried on there-after by the remaining parties in the course of winding up and for realisation of its dues. It is unnecessary for us to deal with any other decision in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point. In our opinion, the Supreme Court decision on this point reaffirms the view taken in the earlier decision of this Court in Gharsana Beriwal Road Workss case (supra). There is thus no ground to distinguish that decision. Following that decision this reference has to be answered in favour of the revenue. 9. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by holding that the view taken by the Tribunal is not justified and this is a case of mere change in constitution of the firm governed by Section 187 (2) and not one of succession governed by Section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. No costs.