1982 (3) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The assessment year is 1980-81 for the previous year ended31st March 1980. The assessee filed an application in Form No. 11 along with the partnership deed dt.28th March 1980claiming registration u/s 185(1)(a) of the Act. 3. The ITO found that the appellant firm denied maintenance of accounts, that even copies of the capital accounts of the partners had not been filed and that there was no proof of the division of profits. He further found that the assessee's counsel, Shri R.K. Bansal, informed him on3rd Feb., 1981that, "it was not possible to produce partner Jai Singh". The ITO, therefore, concluded that the genuineness of the firm had not been proved, that there was no proof of the distribution of the profits as there was no accounts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant. He, therefore, dismissed the assessee's appeal. It is from this order that the appellant has preferred the present appeal to the Tribunal. 6. After hearing the ld. counsel on both sides, I consider that the matter must go back to the AAC for fresh disposal. The question for determination in the present appeal is the genuineness of the appellant-firm of two partners in the appellant-firm, one Shri Suresh Kumar has been appearing before the ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings. The ITO had doubt about the genuineness of the other partner, Shri Jai Singh. When the said partner Jai Singh appeared before the AAC and also filed an affidavit affirming his position as a partner of the appellant firm, the proper course for the AAC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el/82, the first objection is to the inclusion of the contract receipts by including the security amounts. The assessee's contention is that in cash basis of accounting the security deducted by the Municipal authorities should not be included in the contract receipts. The assessee had declared its income at Rs. 19,400 by taking the receipts from the Nagar Palika, Hapur, at Rs. 2,46,951. It was admitted before the ITO that this payment was after deduction of security at 10 percent by the Nagar Palika. The ITO, therefore, took the gross receipts at Rs. 2,74,390 on which estimated the net income at 12.5 percent. The AAC while reducing the rate of net income to 10 percent from 12.5 percent, confirmed the contract receipts of Rs. 2,74,390 as tak....