1984 (4) TMI 116 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal confirms Oswal Trading Co. as alias of Ghasiram Kaluram, upholds income inclusion & disallowances

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, confirming that Oswal Trading Co. was not a genuine firm but merely an alias of Ghasiram Kaluram. Therefore, the ... Carrying On Business, Firm Registration, Registered Firm Issues Involved:1. Whether Oswal Trading Co. was an independent firm or merely another name for Ghasiram Kaluram.2. Whether Oswal Trading Co. was a genuine firm and should have been registered by the ITO.3. Inclusion of Oswal Trading Co.'s income in Ghasiram Kaluram's income.4. Disallowance of salary paid to partners.5. Disallowance of interest paid by Ghasiram Kaluram to Oswal Trading Co.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether Oswal Trading Co. was an independent firm or merely another name for Ghasiram Kaluram:The primary issue was whether Oswal Trading Co. was an independent entity or simply a facade for Ghasiram Kaluram. The ITO concluded that Oswal Trading Co. was not a genuine firm but merely another name adopted by Ghasiram Kaluram to continue its business under a different guise. The ITO relied on several circumstances:- The same persons were beneficially interested in both firms.- The business of both firms was the same.- The finances and management of both firms were common.- The business premises of both firms were common.- There were common accounts.The Tribunal confirmed these findings, citing that the same three brothers managed both firms and that Oswal Trading Co. was financially dependent on Ghasiram Kaluram. The Tribunal noted that the ladies involved in Oswal Trading Co. were merely sleeping partners with no active role in the business. The necessity for creating Oswal Trading Co. arose from the regulatory requirements under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, which prohibited a pucca arhatia from working as a kutcha arhatia.2. Whether Oswal Trading Co. was a genuine firm and should have been registered by the ITO:The Tribunal examined whether Oswal Trading Co. was a genuine firm deserving registration. The ITO's refusal to register Oswal Trading Co. was based on the conclusion that it was not a genuine firm. The Tribunal agreed with this assessment, stating that Oswal Trading Co. was merely a new name adopted by Ghasiram Kaluram to comply with legal requirements. The Tribunal cited various authorities, including the Supreme Court's observation in Setabganj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized the importance of unity of control and management, the conduct of business through the same agency, and the inter-relation of businesses in determining the genuineness of a firm.3. Inclusion of Oswal Trading Co.'s income in Ghasiram Kaluram's income:The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision to include Oswal Trading Co.'s income in Ghasiram Kaluram's income. The Tribunal found that the business in the name of Oswal Trading Co. was actually carried on by Ghasiram Kaluram and was not an independent entity. This decision was based on the cumulative effect of various factors, including common management, finances, business premises, and account books.4. Disallowance of salary paid to partners:The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of salary paid to partners. In the assessment year 1976-77, the payment of Rs. 1,800 as salary to Maneklal and Rajendrakumar, partners of Ghasiram Kaluram, was disallowed. Similarly, salary payments to Maneklal and Rajendrakumar in Oswal Trading Co. for subsequent years were also disallowed. The Tribunal held that these payments could not be allowed as business expenditures since the business in the name of Oswal Trading Co. was actually the business of Ghasiram Kaluram.5. Disallowance of interest paid by Ghasiram Kaluram to Oswal Trading Co.:The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of interest paid by Ghasiram Kaluram to Oswal Trading Co. In the assessment year 1976-77, the payment of Rs. 1,600 as interest to Oswal Trading Co. was disallowed. Similarly, interest payments to Oswal Trading Co. in subsequent years were disallowed. The Tribunal held that these interest payments were fictitious and amounted to paying interest on its own capital.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, confirming the findings of the authorities below. It held that Oswal Trading Co. was not a genuine firm but merely an alias of Ghasiram Kaluram. Consequently, the income of Oswal Trading Co. was rightly included in the income of Ghasiram Kaluram, and the disallowances of salary and interest payments were upheld.