9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (11) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT); India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT); ClT vs. Chander Bhan Harbhajan Lai (1966 (1) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT); Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1982 (4) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT); Chimanlal Umaji vs. CIT (1978 (10) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) and Shri Paramanand Bhai Patel and Smt. Jyotsna Devi Patel vs. CIT (1984 (1) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT). Also to consider the comments of the learned author in his book Law of Income Tax by Kanga & Palkhivala (7th edn.) vol. I, at page 1159. Thus, the Tribunal having taken all the facts and circumstances into consideration while deciding the appeal on merits, the question proposed by the Revenue bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed continuation of registration of assessee and assessed the assessee as association of persons on protective basis. The finding of the Income Tax Officer in the year 1978-79 were that the business of the assessee belongs to another firm M/s Abhay Kumar Jaswant Kumar. The income of the assessee was clubbed with that of M/s Abhay Kumar Jaswant Kumar and the assessee was assessed on protective basis in the status of A.O.P. In appeal the AAC following the order of Tribunal dated 13.9.1982 in I.T.A.No.744/Ind/81 relating to the same assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 had held that the assessee M/s Mithalal Ashokumar was a genuine firm and directed I.T.O., to grant registration to the assessee and also allowed the appeal on the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presenting the 35 per cent share HUF styled as Mithalal Chhaganlal (2) Smt.Pyaribai W/o Mithalal 30 per cent share (3) Smt.Pushpabai W/o Abhayakumar 30 per cent share (4) Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Mithalal 5 per cent share The ITO noticed that there was already in existence a firm styled as M/s Abhayakumar Jaswantkumar, Indore. It was assessed by another ITO at Indore. The partners and their shares are as under : (1) Shri Mithalal, in his individual capacity 35 per cent share. (2) Shri Chhaganlal, father of Shri Mithalal 10 per cent share. (3) Shri Abhayakumar s/o. Mithalal 30 per cent share. (4) Shri Ashok Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence. He held that this entity is only a branch business of the firm already existing, namely, M/s Abhayakumar Jaswant-kumar. The ITO completed the assessment of the assessee in the status of an "AOP" as a protective measure. He further held that the income of the assessee will be included in the assessment of M/s Abhayakumar Jaswantkumar. Against the order of the ITO, the assessee went up in appeal before the AAC who examined the matter in detail and upheld the order of the ITO. According to him, the two lady partners were benami for their husbands. 3. The assessee went up in further appeal before the Tribunal, before whom it was argued on behalf of the assessee that active participation by the ladies in the conduct of the business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our opinion, the mistakes committed are apparent from the record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we set aside our order and accordingly order is set aside. The appeal shall be heard again and the same shall be discussed after hearing the parties. Since the matter has become very old, the Assistant Registrar is directed to fix the hearing of the appeal as early as possible" 5. Thus, the Tribunal set aside their own order dated January 15, 1982, and directed that the appeal which had been decided and disposed of on January 15, 1982, shall be reheard. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous petition. The Revenue, therefore, submitted an application before the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for reference of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm. This is purely a finding of fact and in such a situation, no question of law as such arises and, in this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in CIT vs. M. P. Bidi Leaves Company (1983) 144 ITR 487 (MP); India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC); ClT vs. Chander Bhan Harbhajan Lai (1966) 60 ITR 188 (SC); Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 30 CTR (All) 257 : (1983) 141 ITR 664 (All); Chimanlal Umaji vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 507 (MP) and Shri Paramanand Bhai Patel and Smt. Jyotsna Devi Patel vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (MP) 323 : (1984) 149 ITR 80 (MP). In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to the comments of the learned author in his book Law of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
