9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case, the Tribunal has not gone wrong in placing the burden on the assessee to establish that the business in question was separate business of his?" 2.. S.K. Rathor as proprietor of a firm M/s. Karsan Rice Mills was given registration certificate No. CUIE 153. Rathor started a new business by the name and style of M/s. Laxman Fertilisers with effect from 20th January, 1973, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the forums below, the assessee appealed to the the Tribunal. The Tribunal held: ".....In this case the appellant, Karsan Rice Mills, is liable to pay tax under this Act. The proprietor Sri S.K. Rathor of the said Karsan Rice Mills had started this new business under the style of M/s. Laxman Fertilisers. Then as per the proviso (sic) to section 4(5) this newly started business shall be liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant-firm. Therefore, the forums were justified in holding that the present firm is an additional business of Karsan Rice Mills ........" 4.. Before us there was some amount of dispute as to the correctness of the statement in the Tribunal's order that the earlier certificate of registration was granted to the H.U.F. business. Since the learned standing counsel was vehement in his su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of an individual coparcener. The certificate of registration is to that effect. There is no material at all to support the stand that the pre-existing H.U.F. is also the proprietor of the present business-a premise on which section 4(5) of the Act becomes applicable. We would accordingly answer the question by saying: "In the facts of the case, the Tribunal has gone wrong in placing the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
