9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even here the claim is further restricted to the sum of Rs. 22,193 only. The business of the aforesaid firm was closed in the year 1959-60. There was a suit filed against the firm for the settlement of the accounts. The Civil Court dismissed the suit on 13th March, 1978 relevant to the assessment year under appeal viz. 1979-80 (for which the year ended on 31st Oct., 1978). From the account copy filed before me by the assessee relating to the assessment year under appeal, i.e., 1979-80, it is seen that the sum of Rs. 23,752.89 written off during the relevant accounting year under appeal comprised inter alia of the following 4 items. For the asst. yr. 1958-59 (Y.E. 23rd Oct., 1957): Rs. 1,709.26 being interest adjusted on 11th November 1958 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be looked into for the purpose of finding out whether the assessee was obliged to contribute capital and whether the sum in question represented capital of money-lending. He further referred to the following rulings in support of his stand: (1974) 97 ITR 265 (AP), (1969) 72 ITR 833 and (1971) 79 ITR 561 (All). 5. I requested the ld. Counsel for the assessee to produce a copy of the deed of partnership and the ld. Counsel has produced a copy of the deed of partnership dt. 24th Oct., 1957 of the firm of M/s K. Nagaraj, B. Satyanarayana, Adoni. In this partnership, besides the assessee, K. Nagaraja, there were three others viz, B. Satyanarayana, K. Eranna and B. Thimaiah. I find that the business of the partnership consisted of commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aiah Chetty vs. CIT, A.P. (1967) 64 ITR 522 (AP). In that case, the IT Appellate Tribunal had taken the view that when a partner advanced monies to a firm of which he was a partner, it could not be called money-lending business. The Hon ble A.P. High Court specifically negatived this contention by observing as under: "The Tribunal gave some other reasons for disallowing this sum as bad debt, but there is no doubt that it was influenced in its conclusion by the view that when a partner advances money to a firm of which he is a partner, it cannot be money-lending business. But we cannot accept this view. It is not only a matter of business practice but also perhaps in the interest of a partner to advance moneys to the firm of which he is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
