Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Om Prakash. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberI.T.C. No. 3 of 1976
Reported in(1987)64CTR(P& H)147
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentOm Prakash.
Excerpt:
- .....wine shop, and om parkash avtar singh, a cement agency. in his two-third share, he has taken on bidhi chand as his partner to the extent of 33 per cent. the sub-partnership was held to be fake arrangement and the share paid to bidhi chand was added in the income of the assessee by the ito and its finding was affirmed by the aac. however, the tribunal reversed the said finding and deleted the addition. the commissioner then moved an application to the tribunal for referring the following questions of law to this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, keeping in view the observations made by the income tax appellate tribunal itself in om prakash bidhi chand v. ito (it appeal no. 70 of 1974-75) the tribunal was right in law in holding that only two-third.....
Judgment:

Goyal, J. - The assessee had two-third share in two partnership firms, Om Parkash Avtar Singh, an English wine shop, and Om Parkash Avtar Singh, a cement agency. In his two-third share, he has taken on Bidhi Chand as his partner to the extent of 33 per cent. The sub-partnership was held to be fake arrangement and the share paid to Bidhi Chand was added in the income of the assessee by the ITO and its finding was affirmed by the AAC. However, the Tribunal reversed the said finding and deleted the addition. The Commissioner then moved an application to the Tribunal for referring the following questions of law to this Court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, keeping in view the observations made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal itself in Om Prakash Bidhi Chand v. ITO (IT Appeal No. 70 of 1974-75) the Tribunal was right in law in holding that only two-third share of Rs. 41,752 was includible in the total income of the assessee ?'

2. The Tribunal declined the prayer holding that the finding recorded was a finding of fact and no question of law arises from its order. The revenue then moved this petition for a mandamus.

3. The finding of the Tribunal is obviously a finding of fact. The ld. counsel for the revenue, however, urged that on the question of the registration of partnership between the assessee and Bidhi Chand, reference has already been answered against the assessee by this Court. However, on going through the judgment it was found that the reference has been answered in favour of the assessee. Although, as observed by the Tribunal, the decision in the reference on the question of registration of the firm has hardly any bearing but whatever little assistance the ld. counsel wanted to take therefrom also is no more available in view of the fact that the reference has been answered in favour of the assessee. No question of law, therefore arises from the order of the Tribunal and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //