1984 (6) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITO made certain enquiries and found that Smt. Suman was not a genuine partner as she had no money to invest in the firm and that she was a benamidar of her husband, Ratan Kumar, who was partner in another firm doing similar business. On appeal, the ld. AAC confirmed the findings of the ITO and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come to this Tribunal. 2. We have heard the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. Departmental Representative. Smt. Suman Agrawal is the daughter-in-law of Bishambernath Agarwal, who is also a partner in the firm. She purports to have made an investment of Rs. 10,000 in the firm which she alleged to have borrowed from one Smt. Manorama Sharma. The ITO sent an Inspector to Smt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee's argument that it had no proper opportunity for proving the advancement of loan by Smt. Manorama Sharma. 3. It was then argued that even if the advancement of money by Smt. Manorama Sharma was not proved, then there was no material whatsoever that the money came from the husband of Smt. Suman. The only circumstance relied upon by the ITO was that Ratankumar, the husband of Smt. Suman was also a partner in another firm, Ratankumar & Co. doing similar business. This circumstance by itself was no sufficient to hold that Smt. Suman was the benamidar of her husband. This could have been held only if the ITO had closely examined the affairs of the two firms and found either that the money actually came from the husband or there was clo....