9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected by the Tribunal, vide its order dated March 13, 1978, the firm preferred the present petition to this court under section 256(2) of the Act. The facts in brief are that Lal Chand Jaiswal is a partner of the firm, M/s. Lal Chand Jaiswal Co., country liquor contractors, Gurgaon (hereinafter called "the main firm"), holding 33% share in the profit and loss of the said firm. In respect of his aforesaid share, a sub-partnership deed was allegedly executed on April 1, 1972, amongst Lal Chand Jaiswal, Des Raj Singh and Hukam Chand to have 14/33, 15/33 and 14/33 (sic) share respectively in respect of the aforesaid share of Lal Chand Jaiswal in the main firm. The sub-partnership deed was for a period of one year with effect from April 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e partners had contributed separate capital and the profit accruing to the firm had been credited to each of the partners. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the representative of the Revenue filed a copy of the statement dated January 6, 1977, of Des Raj Singh recorded by the Income-tax Officer wherein he had stated that he was the benamidar of Lal Chand Jaiswal in as many as 16 firms and that this firm was one of those. The statement of Des Raj Singh further mentioned that he used to get only Rs. 1,000 every year from Lal Chand Jaiswal for being his benamidar. A photostat copy of the guarantee bond execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Rules, relied upon by the Tribunal, makes it clear that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined, or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders, or for any other substantial cause, the Tribunal may allow such documents to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed. He further asserted that an affidavit of Des Raj Singh dated August 27, 1976, filed along with the application in Form No. 11 for registration of the firm to prove the genuineness of the firm had not been questioned by the Revenue at any stage till the matter was argued be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions of the learned, counsel, we are of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the admission of the aforesaid documents as additional evidence was pure question of fact. In our view, the matter does raise the following questions of law: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal while deciding an appeal under section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had jurisdiction to permit the Revenue to make out a new case to the effect that Des Raj Singh was not a genuine partner of the firm ? (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in law or failed to act in proper exercise of its jurisdiction under rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, in permitting the Revenue to tender fresh ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
