9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of the assessee as a partnership firm or an Association of Persons (AOP). 2. Requirement of a certified copy of the partnership deed under section 184(2) for registration. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was whether the assessee should be assessed as a partnership firm or an AOP. The Revenue contended that the assessee should be treated as an AOP based on the non-certification of the partnership deed copy filed by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the registration as a firm, stating that the copy of the partnership deed filed was indeed certified as it bore the signatures of all partners and witnesses. The Tribunal referred to a previous case law to establish that the requirement of filing a certified copy of the partnership deed was directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial compliance with this requirement, even during assessment proceedings, was sufficient. It was observed that the word 'shall' in section 184 should be read as 'may', indicating a directory nature. The Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled the requirements of section 184(2) in substance, as the photocopy of the partnership deed was signed by all partners and witnesses, meeting the basic requirement for verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to grant registration to the assessee as a firm. 2. The second issue revolved around the requirement of a certified copy of the partnership deed under section 184(2) for registration. The Assessing Officer had refused registration to the assessee, citing the non-certification of the copy of the partnership deed filed. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed registration after examining the deed and finding that it was indeed a certified copy since it bore the signatures of all partners and witnesses. The Tribunal further clarified that the requirement of a certified copy was not mandatory but directory, and substantial compliance with this requirement sufficed. The Tribunal emphasized that the key aspect was the partnership deed being signed by all partners for verification purposes, rather than being explicitly marked as 'certified to be a true copy'. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm based on the compliance with the substantive requirements of section 184(2). In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision to grant registration to the assessee as a partnership firm based on the substantial compliance with the provisions of section 184(2) regarding the partnership deed.
|
