Besides the firm of Ladhuram Taparia, the other five firms which came into existence for companyducting business in cloth and yarn were Jagannath Hanumanbux, Jagannath Harnarain, Ganpatrai Jorawarmall, Seth Ladhuram Taparia and Seth Ladhuram Taparia Co. The following table sets out the names in which the firms carried on business, the dates on which they companymenced business, names of partners and the shares of each of the partners Firm Name of firm Date of Partners Share of No.
36,766 companyld number be added to the aggregator assessable income in the assessment year 1945 46, because the credits were all posed before April 1, 1944.
He, therefore, companycluded that all the same firms belonged to one and the same group of persons, namely, Ladhuram and his sons and Ganpatrai and the Ladhuram was the real man behind the scene and he played the principal part.
He also examined Bhairodan Maheshwari, Sovachand, Hanumanbux and Ganeshmal and issued subpoena for the examination of Rupnarain Gaggar, Chunnilal Lakhotia and Kisenlal Karwa, but these three persons did number appear before him.
There was originally a firm carrying on business in cloth and yarn in the name and style of Jagannath Harnarain at 37, Armenian Street, Calcutta.
The remaining two, Civil Appeals Nos.
The Income tax Officer called for information from banks in which accounts were maintained on behalf of the different firms.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in omitting to companysider and record the reasons for its decision rejecting the points urged regarding the several amounts added to the income of the several firms in assessing their taxable income, profits or gains ?
Ladhuram Taparia and Ganpatrai Taparia and their respective sons, and that the income earned in the business in cloth and yarn carried on in those names was liable to be amalgamated for purposes of assessment in the hands of the appellant firm and refusing to renew registration of these firms under section 26A of the Income tax Act.
1 was number raised before the Tribunal.
The firm, it was claimed by the appellants, companymenced business on February 28, 1941, and companysisted of three partners, Ladhuram Taparia, Ganpatrai Taparia and Bhairodan Maheshwari.
Of this firm, Ladhuram, Ganpatrai and their brother and several outsiders were partners.
Firm Ladhuram Taparia was registered for purposes of income tax under section 26A in the assessment years 1942 43, 1943 44 and 1944 45.
1, Malchand Baid and Kanayalal Lohia partners in firm No.
III to the Nath Bank Ltd. even though he was number a partner of that firm, that declaration of the companystitution of the firms given before the banks did number in a majority of cases tally, that the employees of some firm declared themselves to be proprietor of other firms, that Ladhuram and his sons Hanumanbux and Ladhuram and Ganeshmal jointly operated some accounts indicating that they were number separate and that Ganeshmal, son of Ladhuram, had operated some of the accounts of firms Nos.
I and IV in which he was number a partner.
In appeal against that order, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal held that firms Nos.
companymencement name each of business.
I. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Range C, Calcutta, agreed with the view of the Income tax Officer that the partnership deeds were number genuine and were number intended to be acted upon and that the firms belonged to a group of person Ladhuram, Ganpatrai and their respective sons and the outsides had numberinterest in the business of the firm.
After a detailed examination of the books of account, the Income tax Officer held that The nature of the business of firms I to IV is practically the same.
The High Court rejected this application summarily.
Ganpatrai is a partner in firms Nos.
V, and Kisenlal Karwa partner in firm No.
VI, are strangers to the family of Taparias.
Two of these appeals, Civil Appeals Nos.
Firms Nos.
651 of 1957 and 653 of 1957, are against the orders of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the four firms, firm Ladhuram Taparia, Jagannath Hanumanbux, Jagannath Harnarain and Ganpatrai Jorawarmall belonged to the same group of persons, viz.,
III Sovachand his son is a partner.
II, and did number companysider the remaining items.
IV and VI submitted their returns for the first time for assessment of income tax for the assessment year 1945 46.
The deed of partnership in respect of firm Ladhuram Taparia was executed on October 16, 1941, and the firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms on July 19, 1943.
652 of 1957 and 654 of 1957 are against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta declining to call for a statement of the case from the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, under section 66 2 of the Income tax Act.
IV, Rupnarain Gaggar and Chunilal Lakhotia partners in firm No.
In the companyrse of the assessment proceedings, the Income tax Officer Central Circle II, Calcutta, having received information that Ladhuram and his brother Ganpatrai has started diverse companycerns in different names and they had also started innumerable shops benami and that all these business belonged to Ladhuram and his brother Ganpatrai, started investigation into the status and ownership of the six firms.
I, II, IV, V and VI and in firm No.
The Income tax Officer accordingly refused to register the firms under section 26A of Income tax Act for the year of assessment 1945 46 and treated the aggregate income of the six firms as assessable in the hands of firm No.
According to the Income tax Officer it appeared from the declarations given to the banks that little discrimination was observed between Ladhuram and his sons in the matter of companytrol of funds of the firm.
Shah, J. These are four appeals with special leave under article 136 of the Constitution.
II, III and IV belong to firm No.
