9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Registration of a partnership firm based on Form No. 11 without maintaining regular accounts. 2. Division of profits among partners without clear evidence. 3. Acceptance of oral evidence and statement of account by the Tribunal for registration. Analysis: 1. The case involved a partnership firm applying for registration under Form No. 11 without maintaining regular accounts. The firm had three partners and filed the application on March 31, 1975, along with the original partnership deed. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application as the firm did not provide evidence of profit division among partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, but the Tribunal granted registration to the firm. 2. The main issue was the division of profits among partners without clear evidence. The firm claimed to divide profits orally based on the partnership deed, as they did not maintain regular accounts. The Department argued that without account statements, registration should not be granted. They cited a case where the High Court denied registration due to insufficient evidence of profit sharing. However, the Tribunal pointed out that future profit division suffices for registration, relying on a previous case where a typed statement of profit division was accepted. 3. The Tribunal accepted the statement of account filed by the firm along with the return, showing profit division among partners. Despite not producing account books, the Tribunal believed the oral evidence and statement were sufficient for registration. Unlike a previous case where the High Court required produced accounts for registration, the Tribunal in this case accepted the statement of account without further verification. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the Tribunal's fact-finding authority and the adequacy of the evidence presented for registration. In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to grant registration to the partnership firm for the assessment year 1975-76. The court found no fault in the Tribunal's reliance on the statement of account and oral evidence provided by the partners, considering it met the requirements for registration under Form No. 11. The judgment favored the firm, ruling against the Department's argument that registration should be denied due to lack of produced account books.
|
