JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, J.—The present appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the First Appellate Authority and Tribunal was correct in distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rangila Ram and Others, (2002) 254 ITR 230 SC - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rangeelaram and others? It is not in dispute that the respondent assessee is a partnership firm doing wholesale liquor business. We are concerned with the assessment year 2002-03. One of the partners of the respondent assessee was holding a license to carry on the liquor business. Therefore, when the returns came to be filed, the Assessing Officer held that in the absence of one of the partners, the firm could not have run the business and treat the same as association of persons and rejected the allowance claimed under the Act. Assessee went in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal came to be allowed. The Revenue challenging the orders of the first Appellate Authority went before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the orders of the First Appellate Authority. 2. Aggrieved by the same, Revenue is before this Court. According to Mr. Raviraj, arguing for the Revenue, when once contravention of Karnataka Exercise License (General Conditions Rules) is apparent, the very partnership firm cannot be considered as a legally constituted partnership firm. Therefore, in view of the violation of the Rules especially Rule 17(b), where transfer of license is prohibited without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the respondent Assessee was not entitled for any allowance as claimed in the returns. He relies upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rangila Ram and Others, (2002) 254 ITR 230 SC. He also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in ITA Nos. 191/2007 and 199/2007. 3. From the orders of the Assessing Officer pertaining to this assessment year, we note that subsequent to amendment of Income-tax Act, with effect from 1-4-1993 fresh partnership deed was drawn between the partners and the respondent firm was filing the returns claiming allowance on behalf of the partnership firm. Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of going through the different terms of partnership deed. Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of going through the different terms of partnership deed. In the case of Rangila Ram (supra), the Apex Court stated that, when licensee alone is granted permission to deal with liquor and by virtue of such license if he entered into partnership with others to deal with any liquor, it would amount to all other partners also dealing in liquor. This would be contrary to the basic principle and illegal, as without license other partners were not entitled to carry on the business of liquor. 4. In the present case, as the partnership deed is reconstituted subsequent to the amendment of Income-tax Act with effect from 1-4-1993 the Assessing Officer ought to have discussed the facts of the present case in the light of law laid down in the case of Rangila Ram (supra) and also in the light of provisions of Karnataka Exercise (General Conditions Rules), 1967. Though several decisions were referred to in the orders of the assessment, the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the matter with reference to different clauses in the partnership deed in order to know whether there was transfer of license of one partner to carry on the business of liquor in favour of the firm. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, all the 3 orders i.e. assessment order, order of the First Appellate Authority and order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in the light of above observations. All the contentions are kept open. In view of the above reasoning, we are not answering the substantial question of law. 5. A weeks time granted to Mr. Parthasaraty to file Vakalath.