1980 (8) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al to state a case and refer the following question for the opinion of the Court: "Whether, in the facts of the case, the Tribunal has not gone wrong in placing the burden on the assessee to establish that the business in question was separate business of his?"   2.. S.K. Rathor as proprietor of a firm M/s. Karsan Rice Mills was given registration certificate No. CUIE 153. Rathor starte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me concern and section 4(5) of the Act was applicable. 3.. The assessee's contention having been negatived in the forums below, the assessee appealed to the the Tribunal. The Tribunal held: ".....In this case the appellant, Karsan Rice Mills, is liable to pay tax under this Act. The proprietor Sri S.K. Rathor of the said Karsan Rice Mills had started this new business under the style of M/s.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....siness was started independent of such funds. In this case no such proof has been adduced by the proprietor of the appellant-firm. Therefore, the forums were justified in holding that the present firm is an additional business of Karsan Rice Mills ........" 4.. Before us there was some amount of dispute as to the correctness of the statement in the Tribunal's order that the earlier certificate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tment in support of the stand that the present business also belonged to the H.U.F. Apparently, it is the business of an individual coparcener. The certificate of registration is to that effect. There is no material at all to support the stand that the pre-existing H.U.F. is also the proprietor of the present business-a premise on which section 4(5) of the Act becomes applicable. We would accordin....