9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refusal of registration to the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the AAC dated 31st March 1980, which upheld the refusal of registration to the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77. The authorities erred in their decision. The firm came into existence on 9th April 1975, as per the instrument dated 15th April 1975. The constitution of the firm included various parties and minors who were admitted to the benefits of partnership. 2. There was a change in the firm's constitution on 4th October 1975, with a reconstitution recorded in an instrument. The firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 21st February 1976. A corrigendum was made on 30th February 1976 to rectify an error regarding the commencement date of the partnership. 3. The books of account were closed on 30th September 1975, showing a net loss. For the subsequent period, a net profit was calculated. The return filed by the assessee showed a net profit. The allocation of loss and profit was done as per the firm's constitution. 4. The ITO processed the registration claim based on applications filed by the assessee. The ITO contended that the firm was not genuinely constituted, citing reasons such as capital contribution by lady partners through gifts, lack of personal withdrawals for expenses, and non-involvement in the firm's operations. This contention was upheld by the AAC. 5. The Tribunal found that the decisions of the authorities below were erroneous. The firm was genuinely constituted as evidenced by the partnership instrument. The lady partners confirmed their partnership status during the ITO's examination. In a subsequent assessment year, the ITO allowed registration to the same firm, indicating its genuineness. 6. The revenue argued against the capital contribution of the lady partners, citing cross gifts. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unsubstantiated. Even if cross gifts existed, the money flowed as capital contribution. Assessments of the donors accepted the gifts as valid. 7. Referring to a High Court case, the Tribunal emphasized considering all facts and circumstances to determine a firm's genuineness. After evaluating the case, the Tribunal concluded that the firm deserved registration for the assessment year 1976-77. The orders of the authorities were set aside, and the registration application was directed to be entertained and granted. 8. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, overturning the refusal of registration for the assessment year 1976-77.
|
