9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right in law in holding that it is a fit case in which registration ought to have been granted ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the statements of partners recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act cannot be used against the assessee while refusing registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Act ?" The assessee-firm was a dealer in country liquor. An application seeking registration of the firm was filed along with the partnership deed executed on March 18, 1985. Nine partners were shown in the firm and the firm was shown to have come into existence on March 2, 1984. Search operations were conducted at the assessee's business premises. In the statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence against the assessee-firm. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Kerala High Court in V. Kunhambu and Sons v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 235. In that case, the question under consideration was whether the authorised officer could record the statement on oath during search and seizure on all matters pertaining to the suppressed income. After considering the Explanation to section 132 of the Act, it was held that statements on all matters pertaining to the suppressed income can be recorded. It may be noticed that the Explanation below sub-section (4) of section 132 was inserted with effect from April 1, 1989. Therefore, the aforesaid decision on the said Explanation is not relevant as the assessment year in the present case is 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch could not be used without confronting the assessee-firm with those statements. Further finding arrived at by the Tribunal is that the statement of Surinder Singh did not establish that he was a "benamidar" of his father, Dalip Singh. Surinder Singh had admitted that he was a partner. If he did not actively participate in the business and did not know about its affairs or about his own investment or share, that would only show his ignorance. It would not make him a "benamidar". Madan Lal was not a partner. His statement without having been put in evidence before the assessee-firm could not be used against the firm. It was necessary to confront the assessee-firm with the statement before drawing an adverse inference therefrom. On a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
