On December 9, 1950, Sewak Ram, one of the partners stated on oath before the Income tax Officer that he and his mother Jagrani Devi were number given full share of the profits of the business earned by the firm in Sam v. year 2005.
He further opined that the application for registration had stood withdrawn.
50,0001.
In view of this difference of opinion between the two members, the matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal under s. 5A 7 of the Act.
In that disclosure statement, they further stated that those profits had been divided between the partners.
On March 15, 1952, Sewak Ram and his mother Jagrani Devi gave an application to the Income tax Officer stating that they are withdrawing their signatures on the application for renewal of registration as the profits of the previous year were number distributed according to the deed of partnership and the certificate of registration required under rule 4 1 of the Income tax Rules, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Rules framed under the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 in brief the Act had never been granted as required by law on the back of the partnership deed.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 21, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Misc.
a decision of the Allahabad High Court.
That application was signed by all the partners.
The appellant is the assessee and the companycerned assessment year is 1948 49.
Income tax Reference No.
In that suit he estimated his share of profits in the amount that had number been entered in the account books at Rs.
The President agreed with the Judicial Member that firm was number entitled to have the renewal of the registration asked for.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It arises from.
He further stated that the entire profits earned in that business carried on in the previous year were number recorded in the books and the first four partners had given to him and his mother only their shares of those profits which were recorded in the books.
The two members who heard the appeal ,concurred with the Income tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that a substantial portion of the profits earned by the firm had number been entered in the books.
The assessee took the matter in appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
Sen, J. Ramamurthy, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
A. Ramachandran and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
15,000/ by way of profits outside the books.
The shares of the partners in, the profit and loss of the firm as mentioned in that deed are as follows L. Khanjan Lal /4/ L. Lalloo Ram /2/ L. Dwarka Prasad /2/ L. Ram Lal /2/ L. Sewak Ram /4/ Smt.
Therein he stated that he is number entitled to get any more amount from the defendants.
In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, upheld the decision of the Income tax Officer.
Hence this appeal by the assessee firm.
On October 5, 1950, the first four partners made a disclosure statement to the Income tax Officer to the effect that the firm had earned Rs.
effect that profits of the previous year were divided or credited as shown below.
Ultimately the suit was companypromised and Sewak Ram withdrew his suit.
The assessee is a firm companystituted under an Instrument, of partnership dated April 30, 1947.
To that application they appended a certificate to the.
In his application to withdraw the suit, he stated that he wanted to withdraw the suit in view of the circumstances of the above case, an expression of utmost ambiguity.
On July 12, 1949, the partners of the firm applied to the Income tax Officer for renewal of the registration for the assessment year 1948 49.
Therein he sought to withdraw the application for registration because all the profits earned had number been divided according to the shares.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an appeal by certificate.
383 of 1958.
On the basis of the material before him, the Income tax Officer came to the companyclusion that the firm had earned companysiderable black market profits, and the same had number been distributed amongst the partners according to the partnership deed and therefore the firm was number entitled for renewal of the registration.
Therein they further stated that as the certificate under rule 6 had number been granted by the assessee in accordance with law, the firm was number entitled for registration under rule 6 of the Rules.
On the basis of those companyclusions, he refused to renew the registration of the firm and taxed the firm in the status of association of persons.
The assesesee firm was registered for the assessment year 1947 48.
According to Sewak Ram, the profits ,earned and number entered in the accounts amounted to Rs.
1947 of 1968.
1,13,571/ .
On March 31, 1951, Sewak Ram sued the first four partners for rendition of accounts.
They also held that those profits were number distributed amongst the partners according to the Instrument of partnership.
