2012 (6) TMI 541 - HC - Income Tax

Partnership firm or AOP - during the course of assessment proceedings he could not produce the certified copy of the Partnership Deed as required to have been filed under Section 184(2) of the Act AO denied the assessee the status of the firm and assessed it in the status of Association of Persons (AOP). As a result he disallowed deductions of salary and interest paid to the partners Held that - original partnership deed was not with the assessee but was filed before the Registrar of Companies. Before the Assessing Officer a typed copy of the partnership deed duly signed by all the partners was filed. During assessment proceedings a notarized copy of the partnership deed was filed, in the circumstances the CIT(A) has not committed any error in holding that there was sufficient compliance of Section 184(2) of the Act. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Issues:
1. Challenge to order by revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Denial of firm status and disallowance of deductions by Assessing Officer.
3. Compliance with Section 184(2) of the Act regarding partnership deed.
4. Appeal by revenue against order of CIT(A) and affirmation by ITAT.
5. Justification of treating assessee as a firm instead of Association of Persons (AOP).
6. Technical view adopted by Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

1. The case involves an appeal by the revenue challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year 1995-96 under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The Assessing Officer initially denied the firm status to the assessee during assessment proceedings due to the unavailability of the certified copy of the Partnership Deed, resulting in the disallowance of deductions of salary and interest paid to partners. The CIT(A) later allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as a firm.

3. The main issue revolved around the compliance with Section 184(2) of the Act regarding the partnership deed. The CIT(A) held that the partnership deed duly authenticated by a notary was submitted along with a typed copy signed by all partners, which was considered sufficient compliance. The ITAT also noted the submission of a notarized copy of the partnership deed during assessment proceedings.

4. The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order before the ITAT, which affirmed the decision by considering that the original partnership deed was filed before the Registrar of Companies and a typed copy along with a notarized copy was submitted. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, leading to the current appeal.

5. The High Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal, stating that the CIT(A) did not err in holding that there was sufficient compliance with Section 184(2) of the Act. The court agreed with the orders directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as a firm instead of an Association of Persons, especially considering the submission of the certified copy of the partnership deed before the CIT(A).

6. The court concluded that the technical view adopted by the Assessing Officer in denying the firm status was not justified. It upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT, emphasizing that the denial of firm status was too technical and unwarranted.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue, affirming the orders of the lower authorities regarding the status of the assessee as a firm and the compliance with the requirements of the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →