9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner has impugned the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated December 4, 1995, by reason of which the learned Tribunal has refused to make a reference to the High Court. The uncontroverted facts of the case are that in relation to the accounting year 1989-90, the Assessing Officer (respondent No. 4) considering the stands taken by the parties, held that the work was executed by the petitioner-assessee himself in his individual capacity and, as such, income, therefrom was included in his assessment. Total income was determined and clubbed both the heads at the hands of the Petitioner and estimated the rate of profit at 10 per cent. on the said gross receipt. This order is annexure 2 to this applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income tax (Appeals), committed an error in coming to his Conclusion. It also observed that no evidence was placed on records or before the Tribunal which could show that the firm, Munshi Hussain, was actually in existence as a real firm. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the contract was executed by the petitioner-assessee himself and the same was allotted to him. Not only that even the T.D.S. certificate issued by the company was in the name of the petitioner-assessee and not in the name of the unregistered firm of Munsli Hussain and the petitioner could not satisfy the learned Tribunal (respondent No.1) and so it reversed the finding of respondent No.3 and agreed with that of respondent No.4. The said order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue, on the other hand, submits that the order of the Assessing Officer will reveal that he was not convinced with the partnership deed inasmuch as the petitioner only filed a copy of the partnership deed and some affidavits but did not produce the partners for verification. He came to the conclusion that no intimation was given to the company for execution of the work through partnership and T.D.S. certificate was granted in the assessee's name and not in the name of the firm. According to learned counsel, the finding of the Assessing Officer that work was executed by the assessee himself in his individual capacity, found favour with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and thus it allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. According to him, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it is clear that respondent No.1 was of the view that there was no evidence on record which could even suggest the conclusion arrived at by respondent No.3 regarding existence of a real firm in the name and style of Munshi Hussain. Both respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.1 found that admittedly the contract work was executed in the name of the petitioner himself and not in the name of the firm. Moreover, T.D.S. certificate by the company was also in the name of the assessee-petitioner. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, when the Tribunal on consideration of relevant materials on record has come to a finding that there was no evidence to hold that the firm was in existence in the relevant year, no question of law arises fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
