1998 (1) TMI 98 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interlacing and inter-locking of funds between two concerns, Payment to Agriculturists belonging to trust, Non-compliance of directions under s. 144A.

Interlacing and Inter-locking of Funds:
The appellant appealed against the order passed by the CIT(A) regarding the alleged interlacing and inter-locking of funds between two concerns. The AO observed that part of Arhat received by the appellant was credited in the books of account of a trust floated by Joginder Singh for the benefit of relatives of the partners of the firm. The AO found interlacing and inter-locking between the two parties, leading to the conclusion that business transactions of one concern were undertaken with the funds of another. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO, emphasizing the reliance on the examination of accounts showing credit facilities extended by one concern to another and the subsequent adjustments, indicating a clear interlacing of funds.

Payment to Agriculturists Belonging to Trust:
The appellant contested the CIT(A)'s decision regarding payments made to agriculturists belonging to a trust. The AO noted that payments were made by the appellant company but routed through another concern, leading to the conclusion that the business was carried out mainly with the funds of the appellant. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on the examination of accounts and the nature of entries, concluding that profits reflected in the books of the other concern were actually diverted and earned by the appellant. The authorities found that the income was applied in the trust for the benefit of partners through their children and wives, supporting the initial decision.

Non-Compliance of Directions under s. 144A:
The appellant raised the issue of non-compliance of directions under s. 144A by the AO. The appellant argued that the two concerns were different and independent, citing similar cases where trusts were treated separately for assessment purposes. However, the authorities found that the main income of the other concern was from commission, with payments being adjustments with the appellant. The authorities concluded that the income was diverted and applied in the trust for the benefit of the partners, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant based on the correct analysis of the situation and the profits reflected in the books of the other concern.