9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Refusal of registration to the assessee firm by the authorities below.
Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the refusal of registration to the assessee firm by the authorities. The firm was formed with specific partners, including Shri Sukhbir Saran Kargal, Shri Baleshwar Dayal, and Shri Deepak Kumar Kargal. The partnership deed indicated the conversion of credit amounts into capital accounts for the partners. 2. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) raised concerns regarding the genuineness of the partnership, alleging that incoming partners were benamidars, no new funds were brought in, and the father of one partner lacked experience. Additionally, discrepancies in dates and ownership of assets were noted, casting doubt on the firm's authenticity. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's findings, specifically ruling that one of the partners, Shri Deepak Kumar, was a minor at the time of the partnership deed execution. The AAC dismissed evidence presented by the firm regarding the partner's age, leading to the partnership agreement being deemed void ab initio. 4. Upon further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reviewed the case and disagreed with the AAC's decision. The ITAT found fault with the AAC's dismissal of evidence without proper examination and verification. The ITAT accepted evidence provided by the firm, including affidavits and municipal records, to establish the partner's age and validate the partnership. 5. The ITAT emphasized that the conversion of loans into capital, the partners' business experience, and the active involvement of partners were not determinative factors in establishing a genuine firm. The ITAT concluded that the partnership agreement was valid, acted upon genuinely, and thus warranted registration for the firm. 6. Ultimately, the ITAT allowed the appeal, overturning the previous decisions and granting registration to the assessee firm based on the evidence presented and the overall circumstances of the case.
|
