9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to perform the various acts specified in 19 specific clauses. Clause 20 authorized Shri N. Krishnaswamy to do all acts necessary for carrying out the specific actions mentioned in clauses 1 to 19 and clause 21 stated that Chandini would ratify all acts done by the power of attorney holder. Particular mention may be made of clause 10 which reads as under : "'10. To file Income-tax Returns, to appear and represent on my behalf to receive orders, pay taxes due and file appeals before all Appellate Authorities up to Supreme Court, and to sign tax returns, forms partnership deeds, etc. Thereafter, another partnership deed was executed on 1-2-1982. This refers to the deed of 1-7-1979 and stated that the two partners wanted to take in additional partners for the efficient running of the business. The additional partners taken in were N. Krishnaswamy (Individual), N. Krishnaswamy as representing his HUF and one K. Jayashree. The partnership, according to clause 15 of the deed, was to have commenced from 1-4-1981. The signatories to the deed were Nandini, Jayashree, N. Krishnaswamy as individual, N. Krishnaswamy on behalf of the HUF and against the name of Chandini, N. Krishnaswamy had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of limitation raised by the assessee. The original order granting registration was passed on 18-5-1983. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice on 22-1-1986 and passed his order under section 263 on 25-3-1986. According to the assessee, the order under section 263 should have been passed by 17-5-1985. Since this was not done and the notice under section 263 was issued on 22-1-1986 which is after 17-5-1985, it is contended that exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner under section 263 was barred by the limitation. On the other hand, the learned departmental representative submitted that according to the amendment introduced with effect from 1-10-1984 which was prior to 17-5-1985, the order under section 263 could be passed within two years from the end of the financial year when the ordinal order was passed. Since the original order was passed on 18-5-1983 and since the last date of the financial year was 31-3-1984, he submitted limitation subsisted upto 31-3-1986 and the order passed on 25-3-1986 was within time. We are in agreement with the learned departmental representative having regard to the decision of the Tribunal in N. Mahalingam v. WTO [1986] 19 ITD 74 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed was not signed by all the partners personally, the refusal of registration on the ground that no valid partnership exists was in order and the order of the Commissioner under section 263 is justified. 7. We have considered the respective contentions of the parties, section 184 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the application for registration, inter alia, lays down that the application for registration shall be signed by all the partners (not being minors) personally. However, the Explanation to this section provided that in case of a partner who is absent from India, etc., the application may be signed by any person duly authorised by him in this behalf. In the present case, Chandini was out of India at the time of making the applications for registration. So, her duly authorised agent, N. Krishnaswamy, had signed the application for registration. The Supreme Court in Rao Bahadur Ravulu Subha Rao's case, while interpreting the provisions of section 2 of Power of Attorney Act, had clearly laid down that, if there is delegation it can be exercised in the manner provided therein. There is no dispute as to the existence or validity of the instrument of Power of Attorney. Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1922 read with rules 2 and 6 of the Rules made thereunder. The Court observed that the Rules framed under the Income-tax Act, 1922 were not ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was also observed that there was no conflict between the Powers of Attorney Act and the Income-tax Rules. It was also held that as the Rules required the application for registration to be signed by the partner in person, the signature by an agent on his behalf is invalid. Thus, the Court rejected the claim of the assessee for registration on the ground that the application for registration was not signed by the partner himself but was signed by an agent on behalf of the partner. 10. From the above, it may be seen that the Supreme Court was primarily concerned, in Rao Bahadur Ravulu Subha Rao's case with the question of validity of the application for registration made by the assessee and not with the validity of the partnership deed itself as such. So whatever is stated therein would be applicable to an application for registration under the 1922 Act and the Rules made thereunder. Since we are concerned in the present case, with the validity of the partnership deed, the obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
