9911796707
TMI Blog1950 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 21st April, 1944, to some date in April, 1945. The case of the assessee was that there had been a partition in the family, that the money-lending business had been divided on the 26th of September, 1944, between Nihori Lal and his six sons, three of whom were majors and three were minors, that the cloth business had been partitioned on the 20th of April, 1944, and the assets divided into seven parts in the same way as the assets of the money-lending business. The case of the assessee was that after these divisions on 20th April, 1944, and 26th September, 1944, respectively the cloth business and the money-lending business had been carried on in partnership and that on 21st March, 1945, a deed of partnership had been executed which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been made partners of the firms, entitled to the profits and liable to the losses. The Tribunal was rightly of the view that it was not possible for a minor to enter into a partnership and that, under Section 30 of the Partnership Act, though a minor could be admitted to the benefits of a partnership, he could not be made a partner and held responsible for the losses. With this starting point, the Tribunal went into the other facts and found that it was not likely that the members of the joint Hindu family had been able to prepare a correct profit and loss account on the last date of the year and ascertain the total assets which were to be divided into seven shares. In other words, the Tribunal suspected that the entries in the books, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrived at by the Tribunal, as it is based on certain other grounds which are quoted in the order of the Tribunal. The other grounds made out by the Appellate Tribunal were that the type and nature of the entries made in the books were such as could easily have been made and so did not inspire its confidence. Next finding was that the partnership having failed the old position remained and the assets retained their original character as property of the undivided Hindu family. In the end it was said that the Tribunal was satisfied that the assets had not gone out of the Hindu undivided family. We have looked into the partnership deed which is an annexure to the statement of the case and a study of that document would leave no doubt in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial to support that finding, but where the finding amounts to this that a party has failed to prove its case, we fail to see why it should be necessary to have positive material to support that finding in every case. If a party on whom the burden of proof lies produces evidence which is considered to be unsatisfactory and is, therefore, disbelieved, the mere fact that there is no evidence to the contrary does not compel the Tribunal to record a finding in favour of the party on whom the burden lies. Our answer to the first question, therefore, is that the Tribunal was justified in its view that the assets of the cloth business and the money-lending business had not passed out of the Hindu undivided family. Coming to the next questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
