DECENT DYEING CO Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
J. Kathuria, Accountant Member -
(1.) THIS appeal by the assessee pertains to assessment year 1982-83 and challenges the refusal to allow renewal of registration to the assessee-firm.
(2.) This appeal was late by three days. We have looked into the explanation of the assessee in this regard and have heard the learned D.R. on the point. For the reasons explained, the delay of three days is hereby condoned.
The assessee-firm was granted registration for assessment year 1981-82 as well as for assessment year 1983-84, i.e., the immediately preceding and the succeeding years. For assessment year 1982-83, which is an intervening year, the assessee had applied for continuation of registration. It appears that all the legal formalities like filing of Form No. 12 etc., in time duly stood complied with. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that as per the books of account taken into possession by the department, there was no division of profits amongst the partners of the assessee-firm. It was also noticed by him that Shri Ram Murthi Sood, one of the partners, had been withdrawing money from the firm for his personal purposes and withdrawals from the bank had not been accounted for in the books of assessee-firm. The Assessing Officer treated this as withdrawal of profits from the assessee-firm by Shri Ram Murthi, partner, over and above his specified share ratio. Continuation of registration was disallowed and the firm was treated as URF for the assessment year 1982-83.
(3.) THE learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and also relied on the Supreme Court decision in R.C. Mitter & Sons v. CIT 36 ITR 194.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.