TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess belonged to Vasudeo Agarwalla as proprietary concern ? " The relevant facts of the case as borne out by the record are these. While completing the assessment of M/s. Standard Mercantile Co., Kankerbagh Road, Patna, the ITO included the income from the sand and china clay business conducted at Rajmahal in the district of Santhal Parganas in the name of Standard Mercantile Co., Rajmahal. According to the assessee-firm, this business exclusively belonged to Sri Vasudeo Agarwalla, a partner of the assessee-firm. The ITO found that the assessee had declared that business as a branch of this firm before the Sales tax Department. The ITO also found that the entire finance for running that business at Rajmahal had gone from the books of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the firm and with regard to his personal business. It was further contended that there was no account for Rajmahal business in the books of the assessee-firm and it was only Vasudeo Agarwalla who was interested as the owner and proprietor of the business at Rajmahal and it was his separate account with the firm from which all funds had gone to the Rajmahal business. It was also contended that after March 31, 1967, even the sales tax authorities treated the Rajmahal business as being separate entity of Vasudeo Agarwalla alone and not a business carried on by the assessee-firm. An additional argument was put forth that the firm had nothing to gain by putting up the case that the Rajmahal business belonged to one of the partners onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Rajmahal business should be assessed at Patna since it was a business run by the firm itself, was estopped from turning round and saying that the Rajmahal business was exclusively his own and not a business run by the assessee-firm. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of New India Colour Co. v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 206, and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300. None of these two decisions lay down the principle of law as canvassed by the learned senior standing counsel. No question of estoppel or res judicata arises in matters of taxation even before the same Department for different assessment years, much less any statement made for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
