9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (9) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1944-45 a payment of ₹ 16,77,875 to C.H. Ghanekar, ₹ 54,100 to Narayandas Joharmal, ₹ 34,875 to L.V. Iyer, ₹ 4,600 to Miss. P. Grant and ₹ 4,707 to Dharsey Chapsey and in the assessment year 1945-46 a sum of ₹ 2,18,669 to the same C.H. Ghanekar and a sum of ₹ 1,09,375 to one Keshardeo Hanumanbux, were not genuine payments of profit and therefore he included these profits in the assessment of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment order and when the matter came to the Tribunal the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer submitted a remand report and on that report on a careful consideration of the evidence the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is not a finding of the Tribunal that these three persons were the benamidars of the assessee, nor is it s finding of the Tribunal that these payments were never made and that the profits remained with the assessee himself. The Tribunal expressly found that these payments were made but they were not made to those individuals but they were made to Ramnarain Sons through the instrumentality of Ghanekar, Iyer and Keshardeo Hanumanbux. If the payments were made to Ramnarain Sons and Ramnarain Sons received the payments, then the profits were not the profits of the assessee but of Ramnarain Sons. In no view of the case is it possible to take the view that these profits constituted the income of the assessee. It may be said that on these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sons, and in the decision of the Tribunal there is no finding that Narayandas Joharmal, Miss Grant and Dharsey Chapsey were the benamidars of Ramnarain Sons or that the moneys paid to these three persons in fact went to Ramnarain Sons. Therefore, if not expressly, by implication the Tribunal has accepted the finding of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that these three payments were fictitious, that the persons to whom the amounts were alleged to have been paid did not exist and that in other words these amounts were paid to the assessee himself and constituted the profits of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we do not see why there was no evidence on which the Tribunal could have held that the amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
