TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstituted to be so till 31st March, 1979. With effect from 1st April, 1979, it underwent a change of constitution and was constituted of the following partners: Rattan Lal 27 per cent Smt. Shanti Devi 18 per cent Satish Kumar 25 per cent Sushil Kumar 15 per cent Ramesh Kumar 15 per cent Rattan Lal was partner in representative capacity as 'Karta' of his HUF. On 2nd April, 1979, Rattan Lal's capital account was debited by Rs. 30,000 and account of Satish Kumar, who was taken as a new partner, was credited with the said amount. The partnership deed was executed on 9th April, 1979, as per which Rattan Lal and Shanti Devi were admitted to be dormant partners and Sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is disputed. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee Shri D.K. Gupta read at length the affidavits and statement of Satish Kumar with other Partners and also the partnership deed. He submitted that undoubtedly out of family funds, Satish Kumar did get Rs. 30,000 which were credited in his account but the said amount was returned to the HUF after a period of two years or so. He also highlighted the fact that nowhere it is mentioned in the partnership deed that Satish Kumar shall be sleeping partner or shall be partner on account of his contribution of capital. He also mentioned that it was not incumbent upon all the partners to have contributed the capital and in that connection he read cls. 4 and 8 of the partnership deed. 5. The ld. de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dormant partner. Since admission of four partners Rattan Lal and Shanti Devi, on one hand and Satish Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, on the other hand has been clarified, first two having been named as dormant partners and the others two having been named as managing partners, deed is silent about party No. (iii) which is Satish Kumar. As per Partnership Act, every partner is supposed to work for the partnership firm not only assumed that Satish Kumar was a working partner. More so, when we go through the affidavit and statement of Satish Kumar, it is indicated therein that Satish Kumar joined M/s Fancy Cloth House as a working partner w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 and from his statement it is clear that earlier he had been working on the said firm for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is hereby accepted. The action of the AAC is, therefore, reversed. 7. Coming to the addition of Rs. 4,000 on account of low household withdrawals, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that even if the withdrawals shown by Rattan Lal in a sum of Rs. 6,000 is considered to be low, it cannot be ignored that addition of Rs. 2,500 in the case of other partners had been made and, therefore, addition of Rs. 4,000 is uncalled for. However, when it was pointed out that other partners in whose account Rs. 2,500 each were added never belonged to the said HUF, he hardly had anything to say except that in that period of 1979-80, 1980-81 even Rs. 6,000 was alright and Satish Kumar belonged to HUF. However, perusal of statements and record shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
