| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3565 = 1963 SLD 3565 = 1963 PTD 293 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeals Nos. 163 to 165 of 1959, decided on 1st November 1960.
Presented By: S. K. Das, M. Hidayatullah and J. C. Shah, JJ
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri (R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopala krishnan with him) for Appellant. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri (R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta with him) for
Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 163 to 165 of 1959, decided on 1st November 1960.
Presented By: S. K. Das, M. Hidayatullah and J. C. Shah, JJ
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri (R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopala krishnan with him) for Appellant. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri (R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta with him) for
Respondent.
KRISHNA FLOUR MILLS
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE
Law:
Section:
Firm----- ----Partnership with wife and brother-in-law-Application for registration-Genuineness of firm-Whether question of fact -Finding based on mere suspicion-Reference to High Court- Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 26-A and 66 (1). Whether a firm is genuine or not is normally a question of fact. But whether in the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal there was material to come to the conclusion that the partnership firm constituted by a certain deed of partnership was not genuine is a question of law. A person entered into a partnership with his wife and brother- in-law. The evidence showed that the wife and the brother-in- law had contributed their own share' in the capital. It was not suggested that there were no good reasons for taking the wife and brother-in-law as partners and the books of account were not shown to be false. There vas also nothing in the conduct of the parties inter se to indicate the partnership was not genuine. The Tribunal, however, assuming that a partnership consisting of the wife and brother-in-law must be necessarily suspect, held that the, firm was not genuine : Held, that on the, materials on record the inference of the Tribunal was unreasonable and not justified either by partnership law or common human experience; whether on the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal there was material to come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine was a question of law which must be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court. JUDGMENT S. K. DAS, J.-These are three appeals by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore dated October 8, 1958. By that order the High Court dismissed three petitions made by the Krishna Flour Mills, assessee before the income-tax authorities and appellant before us, under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, holding that no question of law arose out of the order dated March 24, 1956, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 2358, 2359 and 2360 of 1955-56. M. Kasturi Ranga Setty (hereinafter referred to as K. R. Setty) was a member of a joint Hindu family. On a parti…