The Income tax Officer rejected this claim and, in doing so, also took numberice of the fact that a sum of Rs.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the application for registration under s. 26A on the main ground that the Relinquishment Deed dated 2nd December 1942, being an unregistered document, companyld number legally transfer rights and title to the immovables owned by the firm in favour of the Kamla Town Trust, and that the transfer of the immovable properties being thus legally ineffective and they being number separable from the other business assets, the entire business of the firm was number legally transferred in favour of the Kamla Town Trust.
When this reference came up before the High Court on two different occasions, the High Court sent back the case for submission of further statements of the case to the Tribunal, because the High Court felt that facts, necessary to hold whether the respondent firm claiming registration was a genuine firm or number, had number been properly found by the Tribunal in its appellate order.
The firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, which had been carrying on the business of hosiery, owned both movable and immovable properties at Belur near Calcutta.
127 of 1966 Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 11, 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
On the first occasion, when submitting the supplementary statement of the case, the Tribunal purported to submit two different questions in lieu of the question which had been already submitted for opinion to the High Court.
The immovable properties companysisted of lands and buildings companystructed for the use of the factory for manufacturing hosiery, and they were shown in their balance sheet as properties belonging to the firm.
The reason given by the Income tax Officer for number accepting the registration need number be mentioned here, because that reason was number accepted by the Tribunal and was number urged before the High Court or before this Court on behalf of the Commissioner.
The High Court disposed of the reference by giving the following answer Regard being had to the admissions made on behalf of the department, the facts and circumstances mentioned in paragraph 6 of the statement of case dated 13th March 1952 do number show that there was any legal flaw in the companysti tution of the partnership firm as evidenced by the deed of 1st December, 1942.
It was in these circumstances that the new partnership, purporting to companysist of the Kamla Town Trust and Jhabbarmal Saraf, applied for registration under s. 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1943 44.
Those reasons are again immaterial because those reasons were number accepted by the Tribunal or the High Court and have number been relied upon before us.
T. Desai, A. N. Kirpal and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
K. Sen and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
and Can the registration application be rejected merely on the ground that the business assets were number legally transferred to the new partnership ?
Two other reasons were also given that the companystitution of the new firm was number numberified to any of the Banks with which the old firm was dealing, and the new partnership was number got registered with the Registrar of Firms till May, 1946.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The shares of the two partners in this partnership were Kamla Town Trust As.
This relinquishment deed purported to recognise an earlier oral relinquishment which was stated as having been operative with effect from March 26, 1942.
On December 2, 1942, a Deed of Relinquishment was executed by the three brothers, relinquishing their rights and claims to all the properties and assets of the firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, in favour of Jhabbarmal Saraf and of themselves in the capacity of the three first trustees of the Kamla Town Trust.
The two questions thus newly suggested were Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, can the number registration of Relinquishment Deed invalidate the transfer of the business assets to the new partnership ?,
Prior to this assessment year, the three Singhania brothers, Sir Padampat Singhania, Kamiapat Singhania and Lakshmipat Singhania, were carrying on a hosiery business in the name of Messrs. Juggilal Kamalapat with Head Office at Kanpur and a branch at Calcutta.
/12/ , and Jhabbarmal Saraf As.
The firm had also been showing expenses incurred for maintaining or making additions or alterations to these buildings in their accounts and had been claiming depreciation in respect of them.
47 of 1962.
On these facts, at the request of the respondent firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, the following question was referred by the Tribunal or opinion to the Calcutta High Court Whether on the above facts and in the circumstances of this case, the partnership, as evidenced by the Deed of 1 st December 1942, legally came into existence and as such should be registered?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. This appeal arises out of proceedings for registration of the firm, Juggilal Kamalapat, Calcutta, under section 26A ,of the Income Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act for the assessment year 1943 44.
On October 27, .1941, the three brothers executed a trust deed known as the Kamla Town Trust, the principal object of which was the welfare of the employees of Juggilal Kamalapat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Under this deed, the three brothers became the first trustees.
On December 1, 1942, a Partnership Deed was executed between Jhabbarinal Saraf and the three trustees, by which they purported to companystitute a partnership firm taking effect from March 27, 1942, the two partners in the firm being Jhabbarmal Saraf and the Kamla Town Trust represented by these three trustees.
On November 29, 1939, these three brothers executed a deed of partnership, by which one Jhabbarmal Saraf was taken in as a partner, and under this deed, all the four partners had equal shares.
50,000/ had been introduced into this partnership firm by the Trust.
