9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 for continuation of registration for the asst. yr. 1976-77. The ld. ITO, after considering the evidence on record, was of the opinion that Shri Suresh kumar was minor on 1st Jan., 1974, when the partnership deed was executed, and as such, he was not competent to be admitted as full-fledged partner. So, the ld. ITO required the assessee to show cause as to why the firm may not be refused registration for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and continuation of registration for the asst. yr. 1976-77. Before the ld. ITO, the assessee filed an affidavit of the father of Shri Suresh Kumar. His statement was also recorded. The assessee also filed a certificate of the Medical Jurist. On the basis of these evidences, it was stated that as on 1st Jan., 1974, Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in good faith filed the certificate. That certificate is not a conclusive evidence. Moreover, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the father of the assessee did not go to the School at the time of admission of Shri Suresh Kumar in the School. So the date of birth given in the Transfer Certificate was not correct. From the evidence on record, it is clear that Shri Suresh Kumar was born somewhere in 1954. So, on the date of the execution of the deed, he was major. The evidence produced by the assessee was quite convincing. The assessee could not produce the Jurist before the ITO since he never required the assessee to produce him. The assessee did make effort to produce the jurist but at that time, he had died. So, the certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suresh Kumar was born somewhere in 1954. The statement of the father of Shri Suresh Kumar also corroborates the affidavit. In the affidavit, it was clearly stated that he did not go to the school for admitting Shri Suresh Kumar. At that time, his elder son went to the school. If the entire affidavit and the statement of the father of Shri Suresh Kumar is appreciated it would be clear that Shri Suresh Kumar was born somewhere in 1954. The partnership deed was executed on 1st Jan., 1974. It means that at the time of the execution of the partnership deed, Shri Suresh Kumar was about 20 years old. This conclusion also finds support from the Certificate of the Jurist. The copy of the said certificate is on the paper book. The Jurist has given de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the School Transfer Certificate is not conclusive evidence. Moreover, the date of birth was not written in the High School Certificate. If there was High School Certificate, then there could be some sanctity of the correctness of the date of birth. So, the entry in the Transfer Certificate is not correct. The same has been proved to be incorrect on the basis of other evidence as discussed above. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and the entirety of circumstances, in my opinion, Shri Suresh Kumar is major as on 1st Jan., 1974. On that date, he was between 20-21 years of age. Thus, the authorities below have erred in holding that Shri Suresh Kumar was minor on 1st Jan., 1974. The authorities below did not give other reason for holding tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
