9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer questions of law arising from its order. - Entitlement of the assessee for registration based on the deed of partnership and the status of Hindu undivided family. - Validity of the registration of the firm with new partners and the status of a minor partner. - Interpretation of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the registration of the firm. - Consideration of the evidence presented regarding capital investment and the status of the Hindu undivided family. Detailed Analysis: The judgment of the court pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Department sought a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from its order dated February 8, 1991. The primary issues revolved around the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1980-81 based on a deed of partnership and the status of the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing registration, which was challenged by the Department. The assessee had applied for registration based on a deed of partnership executed in 1979, involving various individuals and Hindu undivided families. The Income-tax Officer questioned the status of the Hindu undivided family and the capital investment by new partners, leading to a denial of registration. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed to grant registration, emphasizing the independent examination of the existence of the Hindu undivided family and the source of capital contribution. Upon appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, stating that the true source of capital contribution would not invalidate the claim of the Hindu undivided family. The Department's reference application under section 256(1) was rejected by the Tribunal, prompting the current application under section 256(2) to direct the Tribunal to refer the question of the assessee's entitlement for registration. During the hearing, the Department's counsel argued against the registration based on the minor partner's lack of capital investment and working involvement, suggesting that the minor was a benamidar for his father. Ultimately, the court allowed the application and directed the Tribunal to refer the question of whether the assessee was entitled to registration, refraining from expressing opinions on the case's merits to avoid prejudice. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue by directing the Tribunal to refer the question of the assessee's entitlement for registration, disposing of the petition without costs. The counsel's fee was allowed, and compliance with the order was instructed to be done promptly.
|
