9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the firm? " The material facts giving rise to these references, briefly, are as follows : The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the name of M/s. Harprasad Mohanlal. Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 136 of 1983 relates to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1966-67 while M.C.C. No. 146 of 1983 relates to the assessment year 1968-69. For these assessment years, the assessee claimed registration. The. Income-tax Officer held that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Harprasad Mohanlal was the individual business of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that there was a partition of the Hindu undivided family consisting of Harprasad and his sons, and that the amount which had fallen t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as evidenced by the deed of partnership. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kisansing Mohansing Balwar v. Vishnu Balkrishna Jogalekar, AIR 1951 Bom 4. It was also contended that the Tribunal ignored the evidence produced by the assessee to show that the assessee had filed suits in the name of the firm ; that a mining lease bad been obtained in the name of the firm and that a deed of declaration was executed by Harprasad on July 17, 1968, declaring partition of the joint Hindu family. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that even if the assessee had failed to prove that there was a partition of ancestral property between Harprasad and his sons, there was sufficient material for holding that the self-acquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Once it was found by the Tribunal that the facts pleaded by the assessee to prove the constitution of the firm were not established, the Tribunal held that the facts that suits were filed in the name of the firm or that mining lease was obtained in the name of the firm, were not sufficient for holding that a genuine firm had come into existence. The facts that subsequent to the assessment years in question, Harprasad had executed deed of declaration on July 17, 1968, that his belief that his business was owned by the Hindu undivided family was ill-founded and that he had impressed it with the character of joint family property could not be held to be decisive for holding that prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
