Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 676 - HC - Income TaxStatus of a person - Mere employee or a partner - Baldev Singh was a partner of M/s Baldev Singh & Co.? - liquor trade vends - it was contended that the mere fact that Baldev Singh may have signed certain documents during auction proceedings, on behalf of the firm does not raise inference that Baldev Singh was a partner - Held that:- In the liquor trade vends are taken on benami names but in the absence of any evidence that Baldev Singh was a mere employee, whose name was used or any evidence that Baldev Singh was an employee of Pritam Singh, cannot discard the record pertaining to auction of liquor vends particularly as it is signed by Baldev Singh. The onus to prove his status as an employee lay upon Baldev Singh, to rebutt the presumption that arises against him from his signatures appearing on all relevant documents pertaining to the allotment of vends. Apart from his bald statement that he was a mere employee or the assertion that he lent his name to Pritam Singh, there is no evidence to support these assertions. The absence of a partnership deed recording the appellant as a partner, is irrelevant, as the firm bears Baldev Singh's name and is based in Samrala. Baldev Singh is a resident of Samrala. All relevant documents pertaining to the auction of liquor vends are signed by the appellant. Baldev Singh has, admittedly, participated in the auction, was allotted liquor vends, has signed all relevant documents and does not deny that he participated in the business, though, allegedly as an employee. The onus to prove this fact having not been discharged, we cannot speculate merely on the basis of malpractices is the liquor business to accept his submissions. The fact that Pritam Singh may not have been called as a witness or examined or did not make this allegation in his initial statement, is also irrelevant as Baldev Singh has admitted his signatures on all relevant documents executed at the time of allotment of the vends and has failed to adduce evidence in support of his plea that he was a mere employee and also renders irrelevant the principle that statement of one cannot be read against another to prove a partnership. As earlier order passed by the CIT(A) which was reversed by the ITAT, by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer Baldev Singh accepted this order, participated in proceedings before the Assessing Officer and filed a response to queries raised after the record of the Excise and Taxation Department after was summoned and, therefore, cannot turn the clock back by challenging this order. It would also be appropriate to point out that the earlier order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside as relevant record pertaining to liquor vends had not been requisitioned. The Assessing Officer requisitioned the record of the Excise Department and upon finding that all relevant documents were signed by Baldev Singh, held that Baldev Singh was a partner of Baldev Singh & Co. - Decided against the appellant.
|