9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the asst. yr. 1983-84. 2. In the first seven grounds the assessee, a partnership firm deriving income from selling radio parts and components, is aggrieved against a trading addition of Rs. 20,600. The relevant facts are that on scrutiny of the accounts of the assessee the ITO noted that goods worth Rs. 2,86,206 had been sold by the assessee to one of its partners, Shri Kailash Chand at cost with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as a result of transfer of its goods to one of its retiring partner at cost, none was taxable in its hands (vide Sir Kikabhai Prem Chand vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC)). It was pointed out that at one stage the ITO had even refused registration to the assessee firm doubting the retirement of the partners from the partnership under the partnership deed dt.10th Feb., 1975but in appeal registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the stock-in-trade on dissolution of firm was required to be valued as per market rates and since that was not done in this case, the ITO was justified in making the impugned addition. 5. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us we are of the opinion that it is difficult to sustain CIT(A)'s order on the point. Assessee's version has been that such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remains that these did not, either directly or indirectly, earn any profit in the transaction. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the ITO brought on record neither the cost value nor market value of the goods sold. There is in fact no basis of his estimating the profit of the assessee at Rs. 20,600. In view of this specific lacuna of absence of requisite evidence in the case theMadr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
