HEMANT APARTMENTS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1982-3-30
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 06,1982

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

I.S. Nigam, Accountant Member - (1.) THESE two appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the AAC, Range I, Kanpur, relating to the assessment year 1977-78 for the sake of convenience are disposed of by a consolidated order.
(2.) Smt. Pushpa Rani Garg, Shri Ashok Kumar Garg and Hemant Brothers (P.) Ltd. executed a partnership deed with effect from 15-7-1975, whereby Smt. Pushpa Rani Garg and Shri Ashok Kumar Garg contributed plots of land of the value of Is. 20,000 and Rs. 55,000, respectively, while Hemant Brothers (P.) Ltd. promised to contribute Rs. 55, 000 in cash as and when required. The ITO, however, found that no business of any kind was done, there was no mutation of any plot of land in favour of the firm and there was also no contribution in cash by Hemant Brothers (P.) Ltd. It was further found by the ITO that the firm came to an end on 6-1-1976 and, therefore, did not exist during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. The ITO was not convinced with the assessee's reply that since according to Clause (8) of the partnership deed dated 15-7-1975, the final accounts of the partnership were to be drawn on 30th June, the final accounts could not be drawn till 30-6-1976 and, therefore, the firm should be considered to have existed till 30-6-1976. The ITO, therefore, refused the assessee's claim of registration by order under section When the matter went up in appeal, the AAC held that since no business was carried on by the assessee, one of the essential requisites to constitute a partnership was not in existence and, therefore, the claim of registration was rightly not allowed by the ITO. The assessee, however, moved an application under Section 154 pointing out that since all the legal formalities in connection with the claim of registration have been complied with, the conclusion of the AAC that the claim of registration was not in order was a mistake apparent from the record and, therefore, the order of the AAC should be rectified. The AAC, however, rejected the assessee's application under Section 154. The assessee has, therefore, come up in the present appeals before us.
(3.) THE appeal were fixed for hearing a number of times and on the assessee's requests by telegram and application the date of hearing was adjourned from 28-10-1981 to 30-11-1981, from 30-11-1981 to 14-12-1981, from 14-12-1981 to 25-1-1982, from 25-1-1982 to 18-2-1982, and from 18-2-1982 to 2-3-1982. THEre was, however, again a telegram requesting for adjournment on the ground of managing partner being out of station. In view of so many adjournments granted earlier, the request for adjournments did not appear to be reasonable and was rejected. However, no one turned up on behalf of the assessee when the appeals came up for hearing on 2-3-1982. THE appeals are, therefore, decided on the basis of the material on the record and the submissions of the learned departmental representative, Shri Jauhari.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.