TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al for coming to a conclusion that the firm is a bogus firm of the assessee and his family members. It is really not necessary nor possible in view of our limited jurisdiction conferred under section 260A. We can only examine substantial questions of law and not questions of fact. - Apeal has no merit. It fails and is accordingly, dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 28-10-2004 - Judge(s) : A. M. SAPRE., ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.M. Sapre J.- The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of the other connected appeals being I.T.A. Nos. 73,75,76 and 78 of 1999 because all these appeals involve an identical point and secondly, they arise between the same parties. This i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year 1975-76, the Tribunal should have held the firm to be genuine. The Tribunal entertained this application with a view to re-examine this question in the light of the finding recorded and eventually by the impugned order while upholding the finding of firm to be not genuine granted partial benefit to the assessee in relation to cash credit. This is what is held by the Tribunal in paras. 18 and 19 while deciding the appeal: "18. Since the material available on record clearly speaks that the essential elements for constitution of a genuine firm were missing in the present case, we do not have any hesitation in holding that there was no genuine firm in existence in the name of Sardar Machhe Singh and Family, BHEL, Barkheda, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. It is for the reason that the appeal is admitted for hearing behind the back of the respondent. As observed supra, the only question involved in this case and now in appeal is, whether the firm in question was rightly held to be a bogus firm or benami firm of the assessee (an individual). All the authorities, i.e., the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and lastly the Tribunal went into this question and recorded a categorical finding of fact that the firm in question is not a genuine firm. Indeed, this being a pure question of fact was decided on the facts brought on record by the parties. The Tribunal in its long order running to 18 pages examined each and every circumstance on facts and then returned a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave held the firm in question to be a genuine one. We do not agree. This contention was dealt with by the Tribunal in para. 17 and rightly rejected by assigning the following reasoning: "Para 17. Even the assessee has also accepted the findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 1975-76 in which the so-called contribution to the partnership firm was treated as cash credit in the names of 13 so-called partners in the hands of the assessee. Once, this stand is accepted by the assessee in the assessment year 1975-76 he is precluded to raise a plea that this amount was not a cash credit but in fact a contribution to the partnership firm. Besides this amount, no amount was said to have been contributed towards the capital by the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
