9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Registration under section 185 of the Act denied to the assessee-firm. 2. Contravention of section 14 of the Abkari Act. 3. Non-appearance of partners before the ITO. 4. Allegation of one partner being a benami of another. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned the denial of registration under section 185 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1971-72 by the ITO, which was confirmed by the AAC. The primary contention was that the business conducted by the assessee-firm did not align with the provisions of the partnership deed, specifically regarding the number and authorization of selling centers. 2. The ITO based the denial of registration on the grounds of unauthorized exploitation of an Excise license by the assessee-firm, particularly in Sangam village, without proper authorization. This contravention of section 14 of the Abkari Act was a key factor in the decision to refuse registration, supported by the non-appearance of partners before the ITO, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the firm. 3. The assessee, through its counsel, argued that the actions of Shri G. Narayana Reddy, not a partner of the firm, in allowing the license to be exploited did not render the entire business illegal. Additionally, the non-appearance of partners was attributed to various reasons, with the genuineness of most partners being established through prior interactions with Excise authorities. 4. The Departmental Representative emphasized the discrepancy between the partnership deed and the actual business operations, highlighting the exploitation of the license in Sangam village without proper authorization. The non-appearance of partners and the alleged benami status of one partner further supported the refusal of registration. 5. The Tribunal held that the refusal of registration was unjustified. It differentiated between the actions of Shri G. Narayana Reddy and the assessee-firm, concluding that the former's unauthorized transfer of the license did not taint the entire business as illegal. The Tribunal also noted that most partners had appeared before the Excise authorities, indicating their genuineness. The benami allegation was deemed insufficient to deny registration. 6. The Tribunal decided to grant registration to the firm operating in 13 branches, excluding the Sangam village branch due to lack of proper authority and bookkeeping. The estimated income related to the Sangam village branch could be separately assessed. The appeal was partly allowed, overturning the denial of registration under section 185 of the Act. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision in the case regarding the denial of registration to the assessee-firm.
|
