9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing credit balances in their respective accounts: "Name S/Sh Opening Balance Closing Balance . Rs. Rs. Piare Lal 1,42,041.74 1,62,209.50 Dewan Singh 1,30,268.18 1,38,636.00 Darshan Singh 1,47,128.84 1,67,731.55" The closing balances were reflected in the balance-sheet filed by the assessee in its compilation. On the debit side of he balance-sheet, certain amounts were reflected in the names of the partners which were suffixed by the letters 'FD'. There is no controversy about the fact that FDRs were obtained by the partners in their respective names individually or jointly and interest received by them on the said FDRs was also reflecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the individual accounts of he partners, the firm had opened separate accounts suffixed by FD Merely because 'FD' is suffixed to the said accounts, would not made said FD as those of the firm. He attacked vehemently the action of the AAC. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative Mr. M.P. Singh, on the other hand, submitted that since it is in the balance-sheet of the firm that the said FDRs are reflected according to him, it would made no difference, if they are reflected in the names of individual partners or in consolidated accounts of those of the firm. He relied on the case of Abdul Kareemia and Brotheres vs. CIT (1983) 36 CTR (AP) 263 : (1984) 145 ITR 442 (AP). He attempted to distinguish the case of M/s Dhanpat Rai Charan Dass on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases, there were properties in the joint names of the partners and the same were not only debited in the books of he firm but the assessee had elected to treat the same as those of the firm right from 1963 and the assessee-firm in that case even claimed depreciation on the same said properties in the hands of the firm. Subsequently, the partners of the said firm wanted to distribute the same property by entries. On the basis of these facts, their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the properties were not owned by the partners with definite and ascertainable shares so as to constitute themselves into an AOP and the share of each partner in the income from the property is not includible in his total income. In the instant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
