TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (3) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n declaring income of Rs. 23,820 in the status of registered firm. The application for registration was also filed separately. The ld. ITO was of the view that Shri Kishan Mohan was given disproportionate share of profit in the business. According to him, the assessee did not produce convincing evidence to show that really the profits were divided in accordance with the profit sharing ratio. So, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....note that the Surmal Bahi was not produced before him. 5. The AAC, after considering the contentions of the assessee, and the comments of the ITO was of the view that the profits were not divided in accordance with the profit sharing ratio, as specified in the partnership deed. Thus, the AAC agreed with the finding of the ITO. 6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cordance with the profit sharing ratio. There is no evidence on record to show that the profits were enjoyed by any other partner. It was also contended that the firm carried on business in the year of account, in accordance with the clauses of the partnership deed. It was also contended that both the partners employed capital in the business. In the alternative, it was contended that it is not ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Before the ld. AAC, the assessee filed Surmal Bahi. This document clearly goes to show that the profits were divided between the partners, in accordance with the profit sharing ratio, and as specified in the partnership deed. The ld. AAC called for the report of the ITO, The ITO gave his comments. He does not say that the Surmal Bahi is a bogus document. Even the AAC does not say so. In view of ....