TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (9) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. No such copies have been filed and none is present on behalf of the assessee-applicant. The assessee, M/s. Rajasthan Textile Industries, Kishangarh, is partnership firm which consists of partners, namely, Devendra Kumar, Moolchand and Smt. Keval Devi. This firm awarded sole selling agency for selling sized beams produced by it to M/s. Luhadia Brothers, a proprietary concern of Mrs. Ratan Devi, who was the wife of one of the partners, Devendra Kumar. Smt. Ratan Devi was conducting business of sales through an expert and a person experienced in the line, Madanlal Sethi who happened to be her sister's son. Nirmal Kumar, son of Smt. Ratan Devi, was also assisting her in the busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee are points of fact and no law point is there as regards the assessment years and, therefore, no question of law arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for making reference to this court. The petitioner, the assessee-firm, has framed the following questions of law, which, according to it arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material for the Tribunal to hold that Ratan Devi was a benamidar of the assessee-firm ? 2. Whether there was any material for the Tribunal to hold that no services were rendered by Ratan Devi when it has been accepted by the Department that more than 80% has been spent in earning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... March 20, 1978, were disregarded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in not himself deciding the issue but setting it aside to be made de novo ? " The only question involved in these applications is as to whether Smt. Ratan Devi was a benamidar of the assessee-firm, and as to whether this point is a question of fact or a question of law. In Addl. CIT v. Usmanbhai Islambhai Tonk, the point was about some cash credit entries which were found in the account books of the assessee. In that case, it was observed that the burden lay on the assessee to show that the cash credit entries found in the books of account (sic). Then, it was for the assessee to offer an explanation, but it was equally clear that it was for the Income-tax Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee-firm. The relevant record was also considered by the learned Tribunal and after appreciating the entire record, the Tribunal held that Smt. Ratan Devi was a benamidar of the assessee firm. So, on the question of fact, there is a concurrent finding of the Incometax Officer as well as the Tribunal. In Karamchand Thapar and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 80 ITR 167 (SC), it has been observed as under (at p. 171) : " In our opinion, it was wholly impermissible for the High Court to disturb the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority. The facts found by it could have been challenged only on certain recognised grounds. Neither the High Court nor this court has jurisdiction to reappreciate t....