V.S.GAITONADE, A.M.- This appeal is filed by Revenue against order of AAC. Kolhapur Range, Kolhapur, dt. 6th Jan., 1984 for asst. yr. 1981-82. only point raised in this appeal is regarding framing of one assessment for entire period. AAC has held that is case of succession under s. 188 and not change of constitution under s. 187. facts of case are as below. There was firm consisting of two partners namely Shri D.M. Kasture and Shri S.M. Kasture with 20 per cent and 80 per cent respectively. accounting period of firm was from Oct., 1979 t o 7th Now., 1980. Actually. However, On 30th Jun, 1980 Shri S.M. Kasture retired from firm and from next date i.e. 1st July, 1980 Shri D.R. Koshti became partner. share of Shri D.M. Kasture was increased form 20per cent to 75per cent and Shri D.R. Koshti got 25per cent share. ITO held that this is case of change in constitution and that provisions of s. 187 are attracted. In appeal reying on certain case law referred to in para 3 of AAC s order, AAC held that this is case of succession under s. 188. Shri Srinivasan submitted that as long as one partner continues before change and after change provisions of s. 187 are attracted. On behalf of respondent Shri Nerkar relied on orders of authorities below and also submitted that there is actually dissolution deed showing clearly new firm is entirely different from old firm. On examination of facts, we find that it is not necessary to examine case law relied upon by two sides. From partnership deed and dissolution deed, it is clear that at end of 30th Jun, 1980, for short period, business became proprietary concern of Shri Dhondiram Kasture, What came into existence from 1st July., 1980. Therefore, new partnership. conditions is, of s. 187 are, therefore, not fulfilled on facts, This is case actually of conversion of proprietary concern into partnership from 1st July, 1980. order of AAC is therefore correct. appeal is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. DATTA DYEING WORKS