9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60; and the previous year is the one which ended on 31-12-1133, M.E. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, P. P. Kuriakose and P.P. Varghese, constituted under a deed dated March 7, 1953. It carries on business in provisions, rice and handloom goods. It was also conducting a wholesale ration shop for which the licence was in the name of Kuriakose, and a retail ration shop for which the licence was in the name of Varghese. During the accounting year 1133 M.E., the profits from its business excluding the ration shop amounted to Rs. 9,548. This amount was credited equally in the names of the two partners in the books of accounts of the firm. There was a profit of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been divided between the partners in accordance with the partnership deed. The assessee's learned counsel contended before us that the application for renewal of registration was made in the prescribed form ; that it has satisfied all the requirements of the Act and the Rules ; that the profits of the entire partnership have been brought into the accounts ; that the fact that two items of profits, though entered in the books, have not been divided and credited in the names of the partners in accordance with the deed of partnership, was only an emission or error in making the necessary postings in the books of accounts ; and that this did not constitute a valid ground for refusing renewal of registration. In support of his contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, if the books of account show what share of profit was allocated to the firm of Messrs. Chandulal Dahyalal and to the firm of Messrs. Shantilal Vrajlal & Co., it is merely a matter of arithmetical computation to find out what profits were credited to the constituent partners of the two firms." The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Chhotalal Devchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax . Reference was also made by the assessee's learned counsel to a decision of this court in St. Joseph's Provisions Stores v. Commissioner of Income-tax . In that case, renewal of registration was refused by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the firm did not divide and credit its profits to the partners in accordance with the deed of partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divided between the two partners is provided in the deed of partnership. The decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Kerala referred to above were cited in the, above case; but the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that those decisions were distinguishable on the facts. It is true that the facts are different ; but we do not think that it would make any difference on the application of the principle laid down by Chagla C.J. Sir J.B. Kanga in his Law and Practice of Income-tax, 5th edition, volume I, refers to the above decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the foot-notes at page 800, and submits that this decision is incorrect. In our opinion, the principle laid down by Chagla C.J. in the two Bombay decisions would apply to this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
