9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the firm. (c) the CIT (A) erred in holding that the revaluation of closing stock has to be done taking into account the assessee's estimated expenses of 47 paise for 1000 beedies, for which there was no basis. (d) the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the IAC's calculation of expenditure at 34.6 paise for 1000 beedies was based on assessee's records and that the assessee had not led any proof or evidence for rejecting the basis adopted by the IAC(Asst.) (2) the CIT(A) should have confirmed the addition of Rs. 62,508 towards undervaluation of closing stock. (3) the CIT(A) should have held that the value taken by the successor firm for the stocks has no relevance for deciding the issue of revaluing stock on dissolution of a firm. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee vide his letter dated nil addressed by the ITO on the valuation of closing stock as on 21st Oct., 1980; which rounds as under: "Note on closing stock of beedies, Beedies closing stock 5,51,92,860 beedies valued at Rs. 9,82,348.30 The Beedies were valued at Rs. 17.80 per 1000 for the following reasons: (1) the assessee has to deliver the goods at the destination and he has to incur some expenditure towards cartage & freight, etc. (2) He also pays commission of Rs. 5 per bag of 30,000 beedies. This works out to Rs. 16.6 paise per 1000 beedies. (3) some of the beedies were lying unpacked. He has to incur some expenditure for packing. (4) The stocks were inclusive of Chattan beedies (inferior varieties). These are valued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nferred that there was an agreement between the parties; that despite the death of any one of the partners the firm shall not be dissolved and that being so, there was no question of valuation of stock as adverted to by the assessing officer. 7. Sec. 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932 envisages that a firm is dissolved inter alia on the death of a partner but this provision is subject to contract between the partners. The Phrase 'Subject to contract between the partners', it has been held that the contract to the contrary need not be express. Such contract may be express or implied as was held in SAYYAD ABDUL HAWK vs. VAIKUNTAM (1927) 52 mlj 318. Similar view was taken in KARTAR SINGH SHER SINGH vs. HARCHARAN SINGH AIR 1969 Punj. 244 by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate that such a contract existed, the learned authorised representative for the assessee took us through paragraphs 11 & 12 of the partnership deed which run as under: "The firm has registered two trade marks at Delhi and other places No. 1521 and "Cheel Chap". The rights arising out of above trade marks or other trade signs until the termination of the partnership shall be the joint property of the firm and shall be for the interests of the firm and not for the benefits of any partner or partners either individually or jointly in spite of the fact that they may have been registered in the name or names of one or more of the partners. On the termination of the partnership all the rights pertaining to the said trade mark or goodwill be auct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
