INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. P M B AGENCIES
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
George Cheriyan, Accountant Member -
(1.) IT Appeal Nos. 604 and 606 (Coch.) of 1982 are appeals by the revenue contesting the grant of relief in respect of certain additions made in determining the quantum of income to be assessed for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively.
(a) IT Appeal Nos. 605 and 607 (Coch.) of 1982 are also appeals by the revenue but contest the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing continuation of registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.
(b) CO. No. 73 (Coch.) of 1982 (relating to the assessment year 1980-81) is filed by the assessee submitting that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the levy of interest under Sections 139 and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), could not be contested. Similar is the plea in CO. No. 75 (Coch.) of 1982 which relates to the assessment year 1981-82. In CO. No. 74 (Coch.) of 1982, the assessee seeks for upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing continuation of registration. Similar is the plea in CO. No. 76 (Coch.) of 1982. Of the latter two cross-objections, the first cross-objection relates to the assessment year 1980-81 and the second to the assessment year 1981-82.
(2.) We briefly set out certain facts which would enable a decision being rendered so far as the appeals relating to the registration aspect is concerned.
For the assessment year 1980-81, the ITO considered that the application in Form No. 12 was filed out of time. But the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the application was not belated and this issue is no longer in controversy.
(3.) AS far as the merits are concerned, the ITO referred to the relevant portion of Clause 14 of the partnership deed executed on 1-11-1973 which read as under :
The profits after charging all expenses including interest on borrowings, partners' salaries and expenses, shall be shared by the partners in proportion to the amount of capital contribution by them.
He then adverted to the clause relating to the contribution of capital which was Clause 5 in the deed and the particulars of capital contribution are as under :
The ITO stated that there was no specification of the individual shares of losses either in the partnership deed or in any other supplemental record. He observed that the non-specification of the share of losses was fatal to the grant of registration vide decisions of the Kerala High Court in the following cases-C.T. Palu & Sons v. CIT  72 ITR 641, CIT v. Ithappiri & George  88 ITR 332, United Hardwares v. CIT  96 ITR 348 and CIT v. Best Automobiles  117 ITR 877.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.