1970 (5) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

One partnership in an unregistered firm files appeals against assessment orders - another partner in same firm also files appeals before the AAC against same orders - Whether the appeals filed by Kishorilal Khemka before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the assessment orders made in the case of the Bharat firm, which had become the subject-matter of appeals by another partner, Joti Bhushan Gupta, and whose appeals were earlier disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, were competent

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of appeals filed by Kishorilal Khemka before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Determination of Kishorilal Khemka's status as a partner of the Bharat firm.

Competency of Appeals:
The case involved questions regarding the competency of appeals filed by Kishorilal Khemka before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal initially questioned the competency of these appeals as they were filed after another partner, Jyoti Bhushan Gupta, had already filed appeals against the assessment orders. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed Kishorilal Khemka's appeals, stating that two appeals against the same assessment order by the firm and one of the partners were not permissible. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that Kishorilal Khemka had the right to appeal under section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, as he disputed his status as a partner of the firm. The court highlighted that the denial of liability under the Act includes situations where an assessee contests being assessed in a specific proceeding. The High Court cited precedents to support the broad interpretation of the right to appeal and concluded that Kishorilal Khemka's appeals were indeed competent.

Status as a Partner:
The second issue revolved around determining whether Kishorilal Khemka was rightfully considered a partner of the Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. The Tribunal had ample evidence to support this conclusion, including the original partnership deed and a supplementary deed indicating Kishorilal Khemka's inclusion as a partner. Additionally, Kishorilal Khemka had signed applications under section 26A for the relevant assessment years, identifying himself as a partner and disclosing his share. Despite the absence of the supplementary deed before the income-tax authorities, these actions by Kishorilal Khemka strongly suggested his partnership in the firm. Therefore, the High Court affirmed that Kishorilal Khemka was indeed a partner of the Bharat firm.

In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, affirming the competency of Kishorilal Khemka's appeals and confirming his status as a partner in the firm. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the right to appeal liberally and considered the available evidence to establish Kishorilal Khemka's partnership. The court made no order as to costs and assessed the counsel's fee at Rs. 200.