TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a common order dated January 15, 1999, passed by the Tribunal (the ITAT) in I.T.A. Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168/Ind/91. This appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission on April 26, 2000, when the Division Bench of this court passed the following order: "26-4-2000: Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard. It is admitted on the question of law set out in the appeal memo. List for hearing along with the other cognate matters. (R.D. Vyas, J) (Shambhoo Singh, J)" Heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel with Ku. Mandlik for the Revenue. In substance, the question arose before the Assessing Officer as to whether a firm called "S. Machhi Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the firm should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Since the assessee and the Revenue have accepted the findings of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1975-76 whereby it was held that all the 13 so-called partners were the cash creditors of the assessee, we direct the Revenue to allow the adjustment of these cash credits while working the income of the assessee from the so-called partnership firm. Accordingly, these appeals are decided in the terms indicated above. 19. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above." Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal has no merit whatsoever. As a consequence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined the finding by taking recourse to the provisions of section 254 of the Act and again upheld it but while doing so, granted due benefit to the assessee so far as the cash credit was concerned. In our opinion, the question, whether a firm is genuine or not or whether a firm is benami of the assessee is essentially a question of fact. At least in the facts of this case, we find it to be a question of fact, it was so decided on the facts only by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The concurrent finding recorded by these authorities against the assessee cannot be assailed in further appeal under section 260A of the Act. Such findings which do not involve any question of law are binding on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as contributed by the partners towards the capital of the firm. The contradictory statements of the outside partners Shri Thomba and Shri Pratap Singh also suggest that there was no mutual agency among the partners. Since, ten partners out of 13 partners are the family members of the assessee and the evidence available on record also suggests that the entire affairs of the so-called partnership firm were conducted by the assessee, it has become all the more necessary for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the firm." We concur with this finding and reject this contention. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving that the firm in question is a benami. We find no me....