9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made out on 1st November, 1973. This partnership deed shows that on the retirement of the two lady partners, Smt. Ratna had taken over the entire business of the firm alongwith all the assets and liabilities and goodwill. She was in need of a person who could help her in the day-to-day business and so she took her son as a partner. She had 60% share in the profits and losses of this partnership. 3. On 31st December, 1976 this partnership was dissolved and the late Smt. Ratna retired from the partnership. Shri Rajesh the continuing partner would take over the business including all the assets and liabilities and goodwill of the firm. The credit balance standing to the capital account would be a deposit in the business of Rajesh. Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the Tribunal decision relied on by the Appellate Controller did not apply to the facts of the case. In that case, the Tribunal found that the deceased partner was only owning 10% of the shares and therefore his contribution to the build up of goodwill and the share therein was negligible. In this case, however, goodwill at one time entirely belonged to the deceased and she had 60% share therein at the time of retirement. 7. Mr. Bhide for the accountable person, however, submitted that no partner has right in any of the assets of the partnership and so it could not be said that the goodwill belonged to her. He further submitted that it is not permissible to pick up one of the items of the assets of the firm and bring it to tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to see anything in the dissolution deed to show that the deceased had given up her right in goodwill for consideration. Goodwill has been mentioned as being part of the business which will be completely owned by the remaining partner Rajesh. The dissolution deed does not say that she has received anything as consideration. Mr. Bhide made out a case saying that Shri Rajesh had indemnified the deceased in respect of the outstanding debts of the firm and this would be consideration for giving up goodwill. Emphasis was laid on cl. 7 of the dissolution deed. We are of opinion that this would not amount to consideration. As against the credit of Rs. 2.50 lacs for which she is claimed to be indemnified, the firm has considerable amount of assets. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se relied on by Mr. Bhide is easily distinguishable. 11. As Shri Trimal, departmental representative pointed out, the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Babulal Ratilal Shah is easily distinguishable. Unlike that case the deceased here was at one time the full owner of the business and at the time of dissolution she had 60% share therein. 12. On these facts, we therefore, hold that the addition of Rs. 34,500 was correctly made by the Asstt. Controller. This will be restored. 13. In ground No. 2 objection has been taken for exemption u/s. 33(1)(n) in respect of garage of Rs. 2000. We find this point has been adequately dealt with by the Appellate Controller and for those reasons, we will uphold his findings. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
