2003 (9) TMI 701 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of the assessee as a firm.
2. Requirement of filing a certified copy of the partnership deed.
3. Interpretation of sections 184(2) and 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Validity of the fee paid by the assessee for the appeal.
5. Comparison with previous judgments regarding the filing of partnership deed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of the assessee as a firm
The appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the status adopted by the Assessing Officer, assessing the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) instead of a firm. The contention was that the newly constituted firm made an unintentional mistake in not furnishing the certified copy of the partnership deed along with the return of income. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee-firm as a registered firm based on the submission of the certified copy during the assessment proceedings.

Issue 2: Requirement of filing a certified copy of the partnership deed
The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement of filing a certified copy of the partnership deed along with the return of income was considered directory and not mandatory. As long as the certified copy was provided before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, the requirement of section 184(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was deemed satisfied, as per previous judgments.

Issue 3: Interpretation of sections 184(2) and 185
The Tribunal clarified that the provisions of section 184(2) and section 185 were not directly related to the total income computed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the fee paid by the assessee for the appeal was deemed adequate under section 253(6)(d) of the Act, and the defect memo issued by the Registry was considered invalid and subsequently canceled.

Issue 4: Validity of the fee paid by the assessee for the appeal
The Tribunal determined that the fee of Rs. 500 paid by the assessee for the appeal was in accordance with the provisions of section 253(6)(d) of the Act, as the sections (a), (b), and (c) under section 253(6) were not applicable in this case due to the nature of the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 5: Comparison with previous judgments regarding the filing of partnership deed
The assessee relied on previous judgments, particularly the case of R.N. Construction Co., where the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the firm as a registered firm based on the submission of the partnership deed during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found similarities in the present case and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee-firm as a registered firm.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on the above analysis and directions given by the Tribunal.