9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asst. yr. 1979-80, one of the partners of the assessee-firm was one Mr. Krishan C. Kanika s/o Shri Bali Ram as evidenced by the deed of partnership executed on1st April, 1977. However, w.e.f.1st April, 1979, he retired from the partnership and the other two continuing partners admitted Smt. Meena Kanika as third partner w.e.f. that date. The business of the partnership continued to be carried on under the same name and style of M/s Space-onix. 3. For the asst. yr. 1980-81, the firm filed Form Nos. 11 and 11A within time prescribed in law alongwith the instrument of partnership and a copy thereof. The return of income was filed on2nd Oct., 1980declaring income of Rs. 71,970. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ITO noted the cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) considered the submissions made before him alongwith the orders made by the ITO on this issue and held that the ITO had not proved that Smt. Meena Kanika was the benami of her husband, that, on the other hand, she had given reasonable explanation in regard to the source of investment as capital in the firm, that the reasons mentioned by the ITO for rejecting her explanation were flimsy, baseless and without foundation and that her husband was not partner in the firm and, therefore, her being a benamidar of her husband was absolutely of no relevance to the question of registration of the firm. The learned CIT(A) also held that if at all she was a benamidar of her husband, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r rejecting her explanation are flimsy, baseless and without foundation." In view of this observation made by the learned CIT(A) we have carefully considered and perused the statement on solemn affirmation of Mrs. Meena Kanika recorded on28th Aug., 1982, which appears at pages 14 to 16 of the paper book filed by the assessee. It is found from this that the lady was quite aware of not only the nature of business carried on by the firm and her share of profit and loss therein but was otherwise quite qualified in participation of the affairs of the firm as she was not merely a housewife. In answer to a question she informed the ITO that she had worked for some time in an Insurance Company atChicago,U.S.A.and she gave the name of the Insurance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind any such attempt made on his part to dislodge the claim made by her. She had, therefore, to be treated as a genuine partner. 9. The issue still remains that she was a benamidar of her husband. On this issue, it is now well settled that the onus is on one who claims that someone is benami of another. This onus has to be discharged with necessary evidence. However, we find that in this case, the only evidence that the ITO relied upon, in this regard, is that the husband of Smt. Meena Kanika was partner in the firm and when she entered into the partnership on his exit from the same, the profit and loss sharing ratio in so far as the incoming and outgoing partners are concerned, remained the same. In our considered opinion, this fact alone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
