Genuine partnership and registration upheld where shared premises and staff did not prove a benami or facade concern.

A partnership firm was treated as genuine and entitled to registration where it was duly constituted, capital was contributed by the partners, business was actually carried on, and profits were appropriated by them. The fact that another firm of relatives operated similar business from the same premises and used some of the same employees was held insufficient, without clinching evidence, to prove that the assessee was merely a facade or benami concern. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee firm was genuine and entitled to registration, or whether it was only a facade or benami concern of another firm.

Analysis: The authorities below had found that the firm was duly constituted, its capital was introduced by the partners, it carried on business, and its profits were appropriated by the partners. The mere circumstance that another firm formed by relatives was carrying on similar business in the same premises and using some of the same employees was held insufficient, in the absence of clinching evidence, to establish that the assessee firm was only a front for the other concern.

Conclusion: The firm was held to be genuine and entitled to registration. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---