9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 184 (7) was filed on 2nd June, 1976. According to the assessee the assessee is a registered firm. The ITO was of the view that the assessee , namely, M/s, Delhi Bidi Sales Agencies, Ibrahimpura, Bhopal is nothing but a branch of Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif. Thus the ITO clubbed the income of the firm in the hands of the firm Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif. He completed the assessment in the status of an AOP. 3. Being aggrieved with the order of the ITO the assessee took up the matter in appeal. Inter alia it was submitted that the ITO was not correct in holding that the assessee's firm is nothing but a branch of Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif, Bhopal. It was contended that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for the assessment year1975-76 in the case of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diately preceding year. In that year the Tribunal clearly gave a finding that the assessee firm is separate and independent. That finding still holds good. Apart from it on behalf of the department no material was brought on record to prove that the assessee firm is nothing but a branch of M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif. The learned counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the constitution of the firm M/s Delhi Bidi Sales Agencies, is quite different from that of the firm Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif. The profits earned by the partners of the assessee firm were shared by the partners of this firm in accordance with the profit sharing ratio as specified in the partnership deed. The control and management of this firm is entirely in the hands of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal. It is not the case of the ITO that the facts of this year are different from the facts of the year in which the Tribunal decided this controversy. 10. From the material on record it is clear that the assessee firm is independent from the firm Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif. The constitution of this firm is also quite different from that of the firm Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif. The profits earned by the assessee-firm were appropriated and enjoyed by the partners of this firm. On the other hand, the profits earned by the firm Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif were enjoyed and appropriated by the partners of that firm. The assessee is only a selling agent of M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif, Bhopal. There is no material on record to prove that ultimately the profits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on protective basis. 12. In support of cross-objection it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the ITO was not correct in adopting the status of AOP. The correct status of the assessee is a firm. That it was contended that the status of the assessee should be taken as a registrated firm. 13. The learned Departmental Representative Supported the order of the AAC. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. The AAC pointed out that the ITO rejected application of registration for the assessment year 1975-76 and on appeal is still pending before the AAC. The AAC was of the view that in case registration is granted for the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee firm shall be granted continuation of registration for this year. In ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
