9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Kumar, Naubat Rai, Surinder Kumar and Danesh Kumar was constituted vide partnership deed dt.3rd November, 1975to carry on business in coarse grains and cattle feed having share ratio as embodied in the deed itself. The original final application for registration in form No.11 was not traceable in office and so the assessee was asked to file a duplicate one with proof of having filed the original. The assessee filed a letter alongwith photostat copy of acknowledgement receipt No. 41637 dt.19th February, 1977with which registration application in Form No. 11 alongwith copy of the partnership deed was filed. This application was late by three months. The assessee also filed two photostat copies of the postal acknowledgement No. 0648 dt.22nd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, another application in Form No. 11 was filed under receipt No. 92549 dt.31st July, 1976. Even this application was not traceable and so another application was filed on19th February, 1977. The assessee also pleaded that the delay in filing the application on19th February, 1977was for the following reasons: (a) The assessee was under a bonafide belief that applications have already been filed on22nd November, 1975and31st July, 1976. (b) There were disputes between partners as a result of which the old firm was dissolved and Shri Raj Kumar and Smt. Lal Bai took over theBombaybranch. (c) The continuance of the old firm was delayed by the recovery of dues from old firm partners who disputed their liabilities. (d) The application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s award he noted that there was a good deal of dispute regarding the present shares of the partners and the partners of Delhi firm did not want that Shri Raj Kumar who was working in Bombay branch should have any interest or any share in the Delhi firm. He also wanted that the interest should be charged on the debit balance which was outstanding against the Bombay Brach. The award also showed that Sri Raj Kumar Smt. Lal Bai who were interested in the Bombay Branch objected to this proposition on the ground that the Bombay Branch became very profitable due to the efforts of Sri Raj Kumar and it should not be treated as a separate entity for the purposes of changing interest. He has also pointed out that by award dt.26th October, 1975it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n condoning the delay by considering the award dt.26th October, 1975. The ld. Deptl. Rep. has submitted that the award is a new piece of evidence which was considered by the CIT (A) and he has not followed the provisions r. 6-A of the IT Rules, 1962. We find from the other of the CIT, (Appeals) as well of the ITO that the assessee had forwarded on 22nd November, 1975 intimation regarding the dissolution of the old firm alongwith a copy of the deed of dissolution of the old partnership. Copy of the partnership deed of the new partnership was filed before the ITO on19th February, 1977. It cannot be doubted that in the dissolution deed the details of the award must have been mentioned. Thus, ITO could not know the contents of the award and dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
