9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Registration not granted by ITO under s. 185(1)(b) 2. Action of AAC confirming ITO's order Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was regarding the registration not granted by the ITO under s. 185(1)(b) for the assessment year 1973-74. The firm, M/s. Kodan Das Kishan Das, had undergone multiple changes in its constitution over the years. The ITO refused registration based on the grounds that the partnership deeds did not result in a genuine firm during the relevant accounting period. The ITO specifically noted that benefits to a minor partner could not continue after attaining majority. The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, stating that there was no valid partnership for the entire year based on the partnership deeds submitted. The assessee contended that the firm was genuine, and any discrepancies were made in good faith. The Departmental Representative argued that the deeds were not effective, and the firm was not genuine until a later date. 2. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and partnership deeds in detail. It noted that the firm, an old family concern, had undergone changes due to the sons attaining majority. The Tribunal found that the firm's actions were not for any benefit by showing a partner as a minor. It disagreed with the Departmental Representative's argument that the firm was not genuine. The Tribunal cited a recent Allahabad High Court decision to support its interpretation of a genuine firm. It highlighted that minor discrepancies in the partnership deeds should not invalidate the firm's claim for registration. The Tribunal also referenced a Patna High Court decision regarding the timing of filing registration applications, emphasizing that minor delays should not be a basis for refusal. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention and reversed the lower authorities' decisions, directing the ITO to grant registration to the firm. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the firm's actions were genuine, and any minor discrepancies in the partnership deeds should not invalidate the registration claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the firm's history and changes in constitution were in line with the partners' circumstances, and the delay in filing the registration application should not be a decisive factor. The Tribunal's ruling favored the assessee, highlighting the importance of the firm's existence and the partners' genuine intent in carrying on the business.
|
