Two separate appeals, being Income tax Appeal No.
If Banarsibai was acting as a guardian of the minors representing the family in the business, she would number have applied for the appointment of others as guardians.
After Venkatlal became a major, there was numberobstacle in his representing his branch of the family, in the partnership.
The Income tax Officer refused to register the partnership on the ground that after the death of Nandlal the partnership was dissolved and thereafter Bachhulal and the minors companyld be treated only as an association of persons.
In the appeal against the order of assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exhaustively companysidered the question whether there was any partnership between the members of the two families after the death of Nandlal and came to the companyclusion that in fact as well as in law such partnership did number exist.
Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is illegal on account of the Tribunal having companymitted an error of record and having omitted to companysider the relevant material in the case.
There were separate current accounts for the two parties.
10,46,797 Kalooram Govindram Do.
The present two appeals are preferred against the said order.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 10, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.
There is number a little of evidence of companyduct of Bachhulal, Banarsibai or even of third parties who had dealings with the firm to sustain the plea that Banarsibai was a partner of the firm.
Indeed, the companyduct of the parties was inconsistent with any such partnership between Banarsibai and Bachhulal.
On that footing he made another order assessing the income of the business of the firm as that of an association of persons.
After the death of Nandlal, Banarsibai and Shantibai applied to Jaora District Court for the appointment of guardians to look after the properties and the persons of the two minors and on January 21, 1946, four persons other than these two widows were appointed as guardians of the minors.
Therein Kalooram Govindram and Gangaprasad Bachhulal were shown as partners, Govindram having 10 annas share and Bachhulal having 6 annas share.
8328 of 1957 58 and Income tax Appeal No.
After the death of Nandlal, Bachhulal carried on the business of the Sugar Mills in the name of Seth Govindram Sugar Mills.
8,30,348 Profit Loss Account Debit balance 14,01,669 No profit or loss was adjusted to the current account of the parties.
Thereafter the accounts were closed as on 31 3 1950, when the capital account was squared up by transferring that much loss from the profit and loss account and balance in the profit and loss account was transferred in the ratio of 106 to the current accounts of the two parties.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed both the appeals.
Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee the High Court directed the Tribunal to submit the following two questions for its decision and it accordingly did so Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee, Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, Mahidpur Road, Proprietor Nandlal Bachhulal, Jaora, is an Association of Persons or a firm within the meaning of Section 16 1 b of the Income tax Act.
On October 4, 1952, a partnership deed was drawn up between Bachhulal on the one hand and the minors represented by the said four guardians on the other.
years loss 17,51,992 Loss set off against capital account 10,78,666 Rs.
63 of 1961.
In the year 1942 Bachhulal filed a suit for partition against Govindram and obtained a decree therein.
Doubtless the accounts produced before the income tax authorities disclosed that Bachhulal was carrying on the business of Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd. in the same manner as it was companyducted before the death of Nandlal.
Nandlal died on December 9, 1945, leaving behind him the members of his branch of the joint family, namely, the three widows and the two minor sons shown in the genealogy.
For the assessment year 1950 51, the said firm applied for registration on the basis of the agreement of partnership dated September 28, 1943.
To appreciate the companytention of the parties the following genealogy will be useful Kalooram Todi Govindram Gangaprasad d. in January 1943 d. in 1933 Bachhulal Madanlal predeceased his Nandlal Babulal father d. 9 12 1945 b. 25 1 1935 Jankibai Banarsibai Radheyshyam predeceased Venkatlal his father b. 13 12 1931 Shantibai Vishwanath adopted b. 13 4 1941 After the death of Kalooram Todi, his two sons by name Govindram and Gangaprasad companystituted a joint Hindu family which owned extensive property in Jaora State and a sugar mill called Seth Govindram Sugar Mills at Mahidpur Road in Holkar State.
Thus the profit and loss account showed Net debit balance including current Rs.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who examined the accounts with care, gave the following details from the accounts ason November 1, 1948 Joint capital account of Kalooram Govindram and Gangaprasad Bachhulal in the ratio of 10 6 Rs.
8329 of 1957 58, preferred to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were dismissed.
24 of 1955 56 against the order of assessment were filed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
21 of 1955 56 against the order refusing registration and the other being Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
38 and 39 of 1964.
Against the said orders, two appeals one being Appeal No.
Credit balance 10,78,660 Current Accounts Gangaprasad Bachhulal Do.
After the death of Govindram in 1943, Nandlal, the son of Govindram, and Bachhulal, as kartas of their respective joint families, entered into a partnership on September 28, 1943 to carry on the business of the said Sugar Mills.
We are companycerned in these appeals only with the Sugar Mills at Mahidpur Road.
D. Karkhanis, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent in both the appeals .
The assessee made two applications to the Tribunal for referring certain questions of law to the High Court, but they were dismissed.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and N. Sachthey, for the appellant for both the appeals .
63 of 1961 from a reference under s. 66 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay.
In due companyrse the property was divided and a final decree was made.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J. These two appeals by certificate arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Case No.
After the partition Govindram and Bachhulal jointly worked the Sugar Mills at Mahidpur Road.
The return of income submitted along with the application for registration was signed by Venkatlal on August 29, 1951.
