9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm for the assessment year 1956-57 on the ground that it was the assessee, who had contributed capital on behalf of his wife and daughters and it was he who was in control and management of the business and had enjoyed the profits arising out of the partnership. In respect of the same assessment year in question, originally the assessee had filed a return on January 13, 1959, declaring the entire share income of his wife and daughters from the said partnership firm but in the revised return filed by him, he omitted the said income. The ITO, however, while making the assessment for the assessment year in question included a sum of Rs. 11,085, being the 14 annas share income in the said firm in the income of the assessee. Though this asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was his benamidar in the firm. The ITO did not accept the stand of the wife and found that it was the assessee who had purchased the properties at Kamptee with the aid of his own money, that he had disclosed the share income from M/s. Asaram Sadani Co. in respect of these properties and he had included these properties in his wealth-tax assessment as on November 6, 1953, and October 26, 1954. Relying on the statements made by the assessee's wife in reply to a questionnaire, the ITO found that the wife was completely ignorant about the business and it was really the assessee who was to manage and control the business. He also found that the wife had not withdrawn a single penny out of the profits credited to her accounts during the exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal while disposing of the appeal recorded six circumstances extensively reproduced in para 13 of the statement of the case. The first was that there was no evidence to prove that the wife had received gifts as alleged; the second was that the immovable properties, out of the sale proceeds of which the share capital of the firm was claimed to have been contributed, belonged to the assessee and not to his wife. The third was that the wife had not drawn a single penny from the partnership for five years and she had not even got the sum of Rs. 1, 13,168 which was due to her on October 31, 1959, when the firm was dissolved ; the fourth was that it was the assessee who had enjoyed the benefits of the partnership by drawing a sum of Rs. 70,127 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw and the learned counsel for the assessee had, therefore, to concede that the question was required to be reframed by substituting the word " any " in place of " insufficient ". We are, therefore, reframing question No. 1 and it has to be read as follows : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that Smt. Rampyaribai was the benamidar of Shri H. M. Lakhani is based on any material ? " The learned counsel for the assessee had considerable difficulty in overcoming the hurdles which faced him at the outset in dealing with this reference. It is well established that sufficiency of material is not a question of law and if there is any material on which the finding of the Tribunal can be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
