Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (5) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as incepted and that Smt. Veena Devi, one of the two partners, did not give proper answer to all the queries when examined. The use of the word "even" in the order would show that non-examination of Shri S.K. Mohta was one of the factors considered for turning down the claim of registration: "Order under s. 185 M/s. M.M. Enterprises Asst. yr. 1982-83. The assessee applied for registration for the asst. yr. 1982-83. As discussed in the body of the order, the firm was not in existence when the agreement with M/s Premier Straw Boards P. Ltd. Was entered into, Smt. Veena Devi was examined and her statement is on record wherein she has not given proper answers to all the queries relevant for the genuineness of the firm. Even the other pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apital in the case of Shri S.K. Mohta was made on8th June, 1981. Therefore, there was no introduction in the month of April, 1981 when the alleged agreement was executed between the Premier Straw Boards (P) Ltd. And M/s. M.M. Enterprises. This further confirms my view that this is an after-thought to take away the major portion of the earnings of M/s. M.M. Enterprises. Similarly the overdraft facilities were sanctioned by State Bank ofIndia,Faridabadon27th July, 1981. It is also in evidence that M/s Supreme Plastic Industries has already been supplying plastic components to M/s Orient General Industries Ltd., Faridabad and the former company was not paying any commission to anybody, but M/s. M.M. Enterprises also started supplying plastic c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accorded under ss. 58 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, copies of which are given to us at p. 6 7 of the paper book. Further, as against the ITO's version that Smt. Veena Devi introduced capital on23rd May, 1981, from a perusal of her capital account, we notice that such contribution was on4th May, 1981and not on23rd May, 1981. Again, Smt. Veena Devi's capital contribution was of the order of Rs. 2,04,700 and that of Shri S.K. Mohta Rs. 45,000 and such contribution has been accepted and no additions were made in the assessment in the status of unregistered firm, i.e. the entity of both the partners were recognised, otherwise there was no occasion or case for making the type of assessment framed. 5. As far as the ITO s allegation that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion even when opportunity was given. In this connection we saw the order sheet entry from the assessment record and noticed that it was on4th March, 1985, the lady partner was examined. As it happened after4th March, 1985, though that personal presence of Smt. Veena Devi and Shri. S.K. Mohta (the two partners) was required. Thereafter the case was heard on 5th March, 1985, 11th March, 1985, 12th March, 1985 and 13th March, 1985 the summons were issued for recording the statement of Smt. Veena Devi, nothing of the sort was done, as far as recording of statement of Shri S.K. Mohta was concerned, Shri O.P. Dua, made a statement at the bar to that effect. Shri N.K. Bhuraria, Advocate, whose presence is recorded in the assessment order and who .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or she was a benami of the other partner. This aspect, we like to emphasise in the context of the ITO s allegation of her being not a genuine partner. 8. Similarly, Mr. Mohta was admittedly a regular assessee and his capital contribution in the Appellant's firm flowed out of his known sources and in his balance-sheet filed along with the return for the asst. yr. 1981-82, his capital amounted to Rs. 87,378 out of which, as stated above, total capital investment in the firm amounted to Rs. 45,000. 9. The ITO also states in the assessment order, which was made the basis for refusing registration that bank accounts of the firm were opened in the joint name of Smt. Veena Devi and Shri S.K. Mohta. From such fact, instead of adverse inference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates