9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a partner in four firms, namely, National Spinning and Weaving Mills, Amritsar, Punjab Enterprises, Amritsar, Delhi Textile Trading Co., Ludhiana, United Chemical Agencies, Kanpur. He was also a director in a company, known as Universal Dyers and Finishers (P) Ltd. Only two firms, M/s National Spinning and Weaving Mills, and Punjab Enterprises, Amritsar had cars which were used for the business purposes of those firms. It was explained that "It was necessary to maintain a personal car to look after his office in those firms. The assessee also had to make frequent trips to Ludhiana to look after the business affairs of M/s Delhi Textile Trading Co., Ludhiana, where he is a managing partner. There was no car maintained by that firm. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business of the Ludhiana firm and not for earning his share out of this business." We are unable to appreciate the findings of the CIT(A) on the issue. If the ITO had not doubted the expenditure, it was not open, in our view, for the CIT(A) to doubt the expenditure of such a sum as Rs. 4,200 for the maintenance and running of a car. If the assessee has been running and maintaining a car, in our view, the amount which was incurred as expenditure was not so much for which any evidence was called for. As far as the justification for the deduction is concerned, both the authorities have completely misdirected themselves in this matter. Umpteen times, courts have held that what is to be seen when a claim for deduction is made, is that the expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earn income from business of a share of profit from the firm. It has not been denied by either authority that car was used by the assessee for going to the place of business of the firms including that which was settled at Ludhiana. Their objection was that the Ludhiana firm should have claimed the deduction and not the assessee. In this connection we would like to reproduce a passage in this respect from the pronouncement of the Supreme Court made in the case of Ramnik Lal Kothari, referred to above. "Chakravartti C.J., delivering the judgment of the court, was of the opinion that, since the munim did not look after the interest of the assessee in the firm's business but only as a servant of the assessee, the amount paid to the munim was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
