9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assets declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, were capital assets of the assessee-firm?" "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,936 from the total income of the assessee?" The business of the assessee-firm had commenced on November 9, 1969, and the partnership deed was executed on November 11, 1969. There were four partners in the firm, namely, Mannalal Surana, Nirmalkumar Surana, Vimalkumar Surana and Narendrakumar Surana. They share profits in the ratio of 10 per cent., 30 per cent., 30 per cent. and 30 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana and Co., is just an extension of the assessee-firm and, therefore, the income shown in the hands of Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. has been taxed in the hands of the assessee-firm. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considering the facts discussed by the Assessing Officer had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has considered the facts stated above and also the material brought on record by the Assessing Officer and also considered the various decisions of their Lordships and held that Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. is not an extension of the assessee-firm and both the firms cannot be treated as one. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. is genuine and the Tribunal has given direction for registration to the firm which was withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer subsequently. He also submits that the firm, Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co., has its own Central sales tax number and has a separate bank account and registration under the Indian Partnership Act as an independent entity. In written submission, Mr. Ranka also brought to our notice some undisputed facts on record which read as under: 1. There had been a partial partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family and on partition Shri Nirmalkumar Surana (HUF), Shri Vimalkumar Surana (HUF) and Shri Narendrakumar Surana (HUF) received ornaments and jewellery. Out of the ornaments an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the new firm which would have been earned by any other person, if the transactions would not have been through the assessee-firm; 8. The new firm was duly registered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act, Indian Partnership Act and other Acts. It had separate bank account, which was operated by its partners and not by the assessee-firm. It had its own establishment; 9. It had maintained regular, proper, and separate books of account, documents and records. It filed its returns of income on time and assessments were framed. It complied with all the requirements of the Income-tax Act and other laws. Whether the firm, Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co., is an extension of the assessee-firm, Hazarimal Milapchand Surana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that the view which has been taken by the Income-tax Officer is possible but on that basis the view of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, unless the view taken by the Tribunal is impossible. In the absence of any material which suggests that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse, no interference can be called for in the reference matters. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no scope to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on this issue. Question No. 2, relates to the issue that whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assets declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, were capital assets of the assessee-firm. It appears that this question is misconce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, therefore, addition of Rs. 15,050 is treated as income of the assessee for the year under assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has taken the view that merely on revaluation of the assets before making the entry in the books of account would not give rise to an income of the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that if subsequently, the declared assets had been sold as stock-in-trade in the course of the accounting year then the question of business profit would arise and not before that. The view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been confirmed by the Tribunal holding that mere revaluation of the assets does not give rise to an income or n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
