9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see ? " These questions have arisen in the following circumstances : Sh. Des Raj was carrying on business in kirana as an individual. A deed of partnership was executed on December 1, 1964, to take over this business. The partners were as follows : (i) Sh. Des Raj 50 per cent (ii) Sh. Yog Raj 25 per cent. (iii) Sh. Rajinder Kumar 25 per cent. The latter two are the sons of Des Raj. On December 1, 1966, another deed of partnership was executed which was made operative with effect from September 1, 1966. This deed was executed because Sh. Rajinder Kumar retired from the partnership and his place was taken by his brother, Subhash Chander. The shares of the partners under this agreement were : (a) Sh. Des Raj 40 paise in a rup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aj, concerning my share in the shop. I have on this date received a sum of Rs. 2,500, half of which is Rs. 1,250 of my share from my father, Sh. Des Raj. Now, I have no concern with my share in the shop named as Lakhpat Rai Des Raj. Hereafter, I shall have no connection with the movable and immovable property of my father, Sh. Des Raj. I have also received share of ornaments. Hereafter, I have no concern with the property of L. Des Raj. From today the Hindu undivided family of myself and L. Des Raj has ceased to exist. Accordingly, I am writing this as a memoranda." An application in Form No. 11A, dated March 28, 1967, for registration of the firm was moved on March 29, 1967, under section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its was not in accordance with the deed of partnership and, on that ground alone, refused registration. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that it was not satisfied with the correctness of the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer as to the non-genuineness of the firm. However, it expressed no firm opinion thereon and left the question open. Therefore, if the revenue can justify that in law, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the profits were unequally distributed is correct, the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal would be in order. However, we find that that it is not so. In our opinion, the legal import of clause 4 was not in any way vague. We find no vagueness in it. If prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttention is section 37 of the Partnership Act. This provision visualises a totally different contingency and has no bearing on the question before us. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the division of profits was not in accordance with the partnership deed. But that does not solve the problem. The matter as to the genuineness of the firm was to be considered keeping in view the overall picture of the dealings between the partners. That matter the Tribunal left open and it is not possible for us to finally give any answer to the questions referred to us without proper decision of that matter. In this behalf we may draw the attention of the Tribunal to our observations in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hindustan Milk Food Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
