9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Assistant Commissioner to club the income of U. T. T. Company with that of Muthuvelan and Sons and to divide the same among partners ? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no sub-partnership in these cases ? " The proceedings of these references relate to the assessments of three persons, namely, (1) C. M. Gangadharan (2) C. M. Sahadevan and (3) C. M. Prabhakaran. Incidentally, they are brothers. For the purposes of these references they are partners of two partnership firms in the name and style of (1) U. T. T. Company, and (2) Muthuvelan and Sons. The proceedings of these references relate to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. They came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greed to be clubbed with their income from Muthuvelan and Sons and by such process, before the Income-tax Officer they filed returns with regard to the income of this partnership business showing their income from business as such. Perusal of the income-tax orders (illustratively exhibits A to A-5) specifically show this position that these assessees have shown income from other heads also. However, for the assessment years in question, the shares of income have been taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer not on the basis of the arrangement, but treating the two partnership firms in relation to the shares of the assessees separately and independently. The assessees approached the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompulsory. Apart therefrom it will have to be stated that there is nothing illegal about the arrangement in view of the factual peculiarities as specified hereinbefore. At the cost of repetition it is necessary to reiterate that as far as the partners of Muthuvelan and Sons, they are brothers inter se as against the situation that except the assessees the other 16 partners of U. T. T. Company are strangers, the assessees being brothers inter se in regard thereto. As stated above, even the Department has not questioned this position even in the petition of appeal apart from this factor being conspicuous by its total absence in the order of the Tribunal. For the above reasons with regard to question No. 1 our answer is in the negative, in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
