9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 1970 was to be in banking and such other items as the partners may agree. Simultaneously on 14th April, 1970, another deed of partnership executed under which another firm, namely, M/s K. S. Rangiar Bros. was supposed to have come into existence. That firm, according to the deed, was to do business in cloth and such other business as may be agreed upon. Given below are the particulars of the partners under both deeds of partnership. The partners, it would be noticed, were identical. Particulars are also given of the capital contribution by the partners. The capital contributions were different. Another colum shows the shares of partners in the profits and in the losses. The shares under both the deeds, it would again be noticed, were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted to the benefits of partnership. The assessee was doing business of bankers and in the case of M/s. Rangiar Bros. in cloth, i.e., purchase and sale of sarees, raw silk etc. It was stated that the assessee advanced monies to M/s. Rangiar Bros. Only in the same capacity as advances were made to other clients. There was no interlacing or interlocking of finances between the two concerns. It was therefore, contended that separate assessments were in order since under the IT law each firm was a distinct entity and in the present case the business etc. were distinct. 6. The CIT took the view that genuine firms had come into existence under the two instruments referred to and in as much as the requirements for the grant of registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business were distinct and there was no interlacing, dovetailing etc. in the affairs of the two concerns. He stated that in the present case, there was no such interlacing, dovetailing etc. The businesses were separate and separate accounts were maintained and, therefore, making of two assessments was in order. 9. The ld. Deptl. Rep. relying on the decision of the AP High Court in Addl. CIT vs. M. Venkata Narasimha Rao CO.(1), and the decision of the Madras High Court in Iyanar Coffee Tea Co. vs. CIT(4), submitted that it was axiomatic that where the partners were the same and the profit-sharing ratio was the same, a single assessment had to be made. Stress was also laid on the fact that in the present case there were virtually no sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Rs. 34,584. This was as a result of advances made. There is no material, in our view, which would show that there was a common control exercised by interlacing, dovetailing etc. over the affairs of the assessee and M/s. Rangaier Bros. Merely because a few transactions of cheque may have been put through another common concern, it would not amount to interlacing, dovetailing etc. We do not repeat in this case the elaborate discussion in the order of the Tribunal referred to but in the light of the conclusions in law arrived at therein, with which we are in agreement, inasmuch as in the present case the business which are to be carried on by the assessee and M/s. Rangaier Bros, are totally different and even the capital contribution by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
