TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (7) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee-firm consisted of the following 16 partners, having profit sharing ratio shown against each name: 1. Shri Ramniklal N. 4% 2. Shri Jayantilal N. 5% 3. Shri Vinodchandra N. 5% 4. Smt. Madhukantaben Vallabhdas 12% 5. Shri Saileshbhai Vallabhdas 7% 6. Shri Prafulchandra Hansraj (HUF) 8% 7. Shri Hansrajbhai Jivanlal 8% 8. Shri Chamanlal Jiwanlal HUF 8% 9. Smt. Krutikaben Chamanlal 8% 10. Smt. Piyush Kantilal 6% 11. Smt. Ilaben Mohanlal 5% 12. Pravinchandra Karsandas HUF 4% 13. Smt. Hansaben Vasantlal 5% 14. Smt. Ranjanben Laxmanbhai 5% 15. Shri Kantilal Jivanlal HUF 5% 6. Shri Dharmendra Girdharlal 5% . 100% In order to examine th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that all the partners were income-tax payers since long. He also noted that the statement of Ramniklal Narandas and Hansraj Jivanlal did not lead to hold that the partnership was a bogus firm. The learned CIT(A) emphasised that those two partners simply showed their ignorance about the names of all other partners and their respective capital contribution. The learned CIT(A) also relied upon a number of decisions, viz., (i) CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co. (1980) 15 CTR (AP) 203 (FB) : (1980) 122 ITR 362 (AP) (FB), P.A.C. Ratnaswamy Nadar & Sons vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 1148 (Mad), (iii) CIT vs. Sivakashi Match Exporting Co. (1964) 53 ITR 204 (SC) and (iv) CIT vs. R.S. Thangapalan (1969) 74 ITR 478 (Mad) and in particular the decision of Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter in substance. Rather, he examined the matter at length and came to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine and rightly took the status of the firm as unregistered. He urged to restore the orders of the Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, Shri J.P. Shah, the learned counsel of the assessee, strongly supported the order of the learned CIT(A). In the course of his arguments he submitted that the assessee could not produce all the partners because in one way or the other they were not available on the day fixed by the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel also said that the ignorance of the partners as to the entire activity of the firm would not necessarily lead to the fact that the firm was bogus. Generally, in partnership ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onclusion of firm being in existence with benami persons can totally be ruled out. It is to be further noted from the statement of accounts that partners are not only partners in this firm but they are partners in various other firms also and they are even old IT assessees. No doubt, the assessee failed to produce some of the partners and even some of the partners gave some damaging statement but when we consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the assessments of those partners being already completed in which they have shown the share income from the assessee-firm we cannot doubt the genuineness of the assessee-firm. In our considered view, the order of the learned CIT(A) is justified and so we uphold it. 6. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vouchers and auditors did not make any verse remark. It was also emphasised before the CIT(A) that Revenue did not bring any material on record to prove that the payments made to sister concern for purchase of raw materials from them was excessive or unreasonable compared to the rate prevailing in the market. The learned CIT(A) considering those aspects deleted the addition. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the appeal records. Of course, the learned Departmental Representative exerted to make out the case of the Revenue but he could not do so. In fact, before making any addition on ad hoc basis to GP, the books of accounts should have been rejected but that has not been done. From the findings of the learned ....