9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1946, Chuni Lal, representing his own individual firm, the Jaipuria firm , entered into partnership with Baij Nath Bajoria and it is said that in fact the deed of partnership was executed between them on February 7, 1946. That was partnership for purchase and acquisition of armour plates from the Field Liquidation Commission. In the Jaipuria firm the share of Chuni Lal was eleven annas and of Baij Nath Bajoria five annas in a rupee. Baij Nath Bajoria subscribed ₹ 1,50,000 towards the capital of the partnership but Chuni Lal did not subscribe any capital himself and the rest of the capital of the partnership was to come from the family firm. It appears that the Jaipuria firm made profits on its armour plates business and in that connection, in the assessment year 1947-48, the family firm was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, B. 1 Ward of Delhi, on March 18, 1949. the Income-tax Officer found that the eleven annas share in the Jaipuria firm was not the personal and individual share of Chuni Lal but was the share of the family firm. The reasons given by the Income-tax Officer for coming to this conclusion are (a) that no capital was invested by Chuni Lal himsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Officer had erred in his finding that the eleven annas share in the partnership of Jaipuria firm was not his individual share but was that of the family and that the Income-tax Officer also erred in disallowing a sum of ₹ 40,000 paid to Mr. E.V. Crushandal as revenue expenditure because he treated it as capital expenditure. This amount had been claimed at the time of the assessment as a revenue expenditure and this position was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order of July 22, 1950, agreed with the Income-tax Officer on both the questions raised by Chuni Lal in his appeal. He found that the payment of ₹ 40,000 to Mr. E.V. Crushandal was a capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure because it was paid to him to oust him as a competitor in obtaining the armour plate business. In regard to the question as to who was the partner of the Jaipuria firm he confirmed the finding of the Income-tax Officer as well and stated his grounds in support of that finding as (a) that Chuni Lal had been given substantial share of eleven annas in a rupee in the partnership because he was able to contribute a heavy amount fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Appellate Tribunal that the dealings of Chuni Lal individually with the family and that after the division of November 13, 1947, Chuni Lal became partner of his father Beni Parshad. The Tribunal was of the opinion that no findings had been entered on these questions and it remitted the case to the Income-tax Officer for finding on these matters. The Income-tax Officer, on April 10, 1953, made a detailed report in which he came to the conclusions (a) that substantially Chuni Lal was the most active and working member of the family and the family firm because his younger brother was a minor and his father was a fairly old man and thus Chuni Lal was the guiding factor in all matters pertaining to the family and (b) that the partition of the family business on November 13, 1947, was not a genuine affair because (i) what was shown as partition was partition of the business of the family firm and nothing else, (ii) the business capital of the family firm was divided between the father and the two sons and no share was given to the wife of Beni Parshad, (iii) entries were made in the books of account but were not signed by any member of the family and no member of the family executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A second application was made by the family firm to the Tribunal for drawing up a case in regard to the assessment year 1948-49 and referring the following two questions to the High Court: 1. Whether the order, dated August 7, 1953, of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Hindu undivided family Behari Lal Beni Parshad is not vitiated by reason of the remand report dated April 10, 1953, having not been fully considered, particularly as far as it related to the effect of non-inclusion in the division of the joint family business assets of the investments in the armour plates business? 2. Whether the conclusion that the share of Chuni Lal Jaipuria in the armour plates business was owned by the assessee Hindu undivided family is based on any material and the profits arising therefrom have rightly been charged to tax in its hands? The Tribuanl by one order on January 15, 1954, dismissed both the applications saying that its findings were pure findings of fact. Thereupon the family firm has made the application that is Income-tax Case No. 11-D and Chuni Lal has made the application that is Income-tax Case No. 12-D of 1954; each applicant has asked this court to dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of fact. It is now well established that interference on a finding of fact can only be (a) if there is no evidence in support of such a finding or (b) if the conclusion arrived a its a conclusion which on the material no judicial tribunal would arrived at. Neither is the case here. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the Tribunal has failed to discuss and consider the report of the Income-tax Officer after the remand of the case. The Tribunal has referred to that report in its order and since it was agreeing with the reasoning of the Income-tax Officer, merely because it has not re-written those reasons in its own order that is not a ground for concluding that it has not considered those reasons and has not based its order upon reasons. The learned counsel has then contended that the family or the family firm was not in fact a partner in the Jaipuria firm but had merely lent the amounts if the when required. At the hearing what the learned counsel attempted to who was that the family firm lent the amount to the Jaipuria firm, but then it was pointed out to him that this was a new case set up in t these applications and earlier it was nobody's case beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
