9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 50 per cent share without contributing any capital was absurd. He was of the opinion that the other partner was only a name-lender and the business was that of Mukundlal dey Mahajan who was carrying on business as a proprietor prior to the formation of the partnership. He further noticed that the document had been written on stamp papers purchased on 7th July, 1972. When this discrepancy was pointed out, the assessee claimed that it was a typing mistake and also executed a rectification deed dt. 8th Aug., 1975 rectifying the date of the partnership deed from 17th June, 1972 to 17th July, 1972 with retrospective effect. The ITO was of the view that no reliance could be placed on the rectification deed and he considered that no genuine fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g mistake in the document and since it was rectified with retrospective effect, there was no infirmity in the instrument of partnership by reason of which registration could be denied. 5. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that there are no merits in this appeal. The ITO has concluded that Mukundlal Dey Mahajan was the owner of the entire business and that the other partner was only his benamidar only on surmises and not upon any evidence to show that the essential ingredients of benamit transaction existed in the present case. He has merely presumed that a working partner will not be taken on to manage the existing proprietary business. Bu as point out by the assessee a decision to take on a workin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtnership. Moreover, the partners were fully empowered to correct the typographical mistake in the original partnership deed with retrospective effect. 7. The Revenue relied on the decision in the case of Malankara Timbers 66 ITR 200 to contend that registration could not be granted on the basis of document which was executed on stamp paper purchased later than the date of execution. But in that case, it was found that it was not possible to say that the partnership was actually in existence during the accounting year and in view of the unreliability of the date mentioned in the document, the exact date of formation of the partnership was unknown. In the present case, however, not only is the date of execution known but it is also affirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
