TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (8) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee-firm was taxable under the head 'Business' and not under the head ' Other sources ' ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in law in granting registration for the assessment year 1965-66, and continuing the registration for the assessment year 1967-68 ? " The relevant facts as evidenced by the statement of the case are these. The assessee, M/s. Pure Dhansar Coal Co., Dhanbad, had claimed that the assessee was a firm and registration for the same had been claimed under s. 185 of the Act. According to the assessee, the firm was constituted by an instrument of partnership dated July 1, 1963. The ITO found that on June 7, 1955, the assessee had entered into an agreeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not treated as commercial assets by the assessee and, therefore, the income could not be assessed under s. 28 of the Act. He further held that the payment of commission was based on despatches but it was only a measure for calculating the payments to the assessee. The orders of the ITO for the two assessment years in question, namely, 1965-66 and 1967-68, have been marked annexures " A and" A-1 " to the statement of the case. On appeal, the AAC generally agreed with the ITO and upheld the orders of refusal of registration for the assessment years in question. The consolidated order of the AAC has been marked as annexure B " to the statement of the case. On further appeal to the Tribunal, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....granted. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended before the Tribunal that the business was being carried on not by the assessee but by the agents and thus there was no business carried on by the firm. It was further submitted that it was necessary for a firm to carry on the business and in the absence of business, there could not be in existence any legal partnership. The Tribunal, after considering the terms of the deed and on the facts and in the circumstances obtaining in the case, held that the assessee had stopped managing the colliery itself and had given the management to an outsider due to certain difficulties. The Tribunal further held that there was no mention in the lease deed of the mines or of the machinery in the agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... " principal " and " agent " throughout the lease is a misnomer. In so far as the present case is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal is that there was a relationship of principal and agent between the parties and that the assessee was actually carrying on its business through its agent. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on a Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Sahana and Sons Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 437. That Bench, which decided the case to which one of us (S. K. Jha J.) was a party and the Bench presided over by Untwalia C.J., held that the assessee-company which owned a colliery having entered into an agreement with another company under which ....