1978 (10) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of income as a partner of a firm, whether Laxmiben was a benamidar for the assessee, validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rejection of reference applications for questioning Laxmiben's status as a benamidar.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications made by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment years 1961-62 to 1968-69. The assessee, previously a partner in a firm, M/s. Chimanlal Umaji & Sons, claimed that a new firm, M/s. Gulabchand Chimanlal, was constituted after the dissolution of the former. The issue arose when authorities reopened assessments, alleging that Laxmiben, a partner in the new firm, was a benamidar for the assessee. The Tribunal and other authorities concurred that Laxmiben was indeed a benamidar, as evidenced by factors such as lack of experience, capital contribution, and the assessee's active involvement in the business operations. The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) based on these findings.

Regarding the rejection of reference applications questioning Laxmiben's status as a benamidar, the Tribunal found no legal issue involved. The Court, after considering the facts, upheld the Tribunal's decision. It was noted that the inference of Laxmiben being a benamidar was a factual determination based on evidence and did not require the application of legal principles. Citing precedents, including Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Rai Bahadur Mohan Singh Oberoi v. CIT, the Court emphasized that such factual findings are binding unless unreasonable or without evidence.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the applications, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings were factual and not subject to legal scrutiny. The judgment underscores the distinction between factual determinations and legal questions, highlighting that inferences drawn from evidence, such as the benami status of a transaction, are factual findings beyond the scope of legal review.