9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sarda did not exist and therefore, there was no genuine firm in existence. Even the registration and continuation of registration applications were defective since the signatures in them were not of Smt. Sarda. The ITO, therefore, taking action according to law, cancelled the registration for the assessment year 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 and refused to continue registration for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. 2. On appeal, the AAC found that at best the difference in signatures which the ITO noticed in the statement dated 16th Jan., 1975 and the other documents could set him on an enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the firm. The ITO had not either examined the partners or come by any other evidence to disprove the existence of a genuine firm. He therefore, held that the ITO was not justified in cancelling registration granted for the first three years and not continuing registration for the last two years. It is against this order of the AAC that the present appeals are laid before us on behalf of the Department. 3. The learned counsel for the Department has stressed the points made out in the order of the ITO and also pointed out that in the statement dated 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins in Statutes as well as judicial decisions, any mark intended to convey the authentication of the owner of the signature would constitute a signature. It is also pointed out that the law does not specify an instrument of partnership but only an instrument, thus making it clear that all the partners are not required to sign the instrument evidencing the partnership. With regard to the document made out for 1974-75 in the letter dated 8th Oct., 1970, it is clearly indicated that it was only as a matter of abundant caution and in order to purchase peace with the Department that it was made out and not because there was no document in existence earlier. 5. The facts of the case are: there was an original partnership evidenced by deed dated 2nd Aug., 1965 of four partners which C. Haridas and Smt Sarda were partners. This partnership deed was accepted as genuine and registration to the firm has been granted. That partnership came to an end on 30th Sept., 1967 and from 1st Oct., 1967 a fresh partnership between C. Haridas and Smt Sarda was alleged to have been stated. This was evidenced by a deed dated 15th Aug., 1968 w.e.f.1st, Oct., 1967. That the Income Tax Officer accepted not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, based on which the ITO has cancelled the registration is not supported by an expert or other tangible evidence. Neither the ITO nor any untrained person could affirm that the signature of a person claimed by him to be his is not his. If this premise does not stand fully supported by other corroborative evidence or even expert support, the ITO could not have come to the conclusion that the lady has not signed in the partnership deed or other documents. This is not a case where someone-else has alleged that a the lady herself has alleged that she has not signed, but one where ITO suspects from the layman's point of view the genuiness of the signatures put at different times. Apart from, therefore, the fact that there could be in practice difference between signatures put by the same person over a period of time and even on the same day, it cannot be conclusively stated that the signatures in the documents are not those of the lady. 7. The ITO has gone on the basis of statement given on 16th Jan., 1975 and came to the conclusion that the lady cannot write or sign. Apparently here is a contradiction in this because even on 16th Jan., 1975 the lady has written her name and the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person who has been accepted as partner in an earlier firm who has got the rights and assets from that firm for herself and from the facts it would appear she is more financially sound and richer than the other partner of this firm. The lady has certainly accepted not only her signature in the partnership deed but also filed returns for the same, paid tax etc. The ITO has made an assessment of the entity in the status of an unregistered firm. If as the ITO thought there was no partnership in existence, the business should have been that of an individual. The income from the alleged firm should have been assessed in the hands of either C. Haridas or that of the lady. In fact the lady has got substantial other income and it would have been in the interest of revenue if the entire income of the lady partner is added to her other income. We are not even sure that by having a separate firm and granting registration for the same the assessee is not a loser financially. With this background the existence of an old firm, division of assets on dissolution of the firm, acceptance of the firm, by their signatures by the partners, the financial greater strength of the lady partner all would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to be a sort of symbolical writing. The definition given in s. 3(56) is inclusive. Apart from the fact that the signature in the present case has not been proved by expert opinion to be not the lady's no provisions of law even has been brought to our notice to show that what obtains by way of signature in this document is not in law a signature of the lady especially when she accepts it not with respect to one document but series of documents over a period of years. In Venkataramaiya'a Law Lexicon. 197 Edition the following obtains: "No precise definition of the word 'signature' is given in the Indian Income tax Act or in any other law. In the General Clauses Act there is no exhaustive definition of the word. It merely says that the word "signature" shall include. It excludes the affixing of a mark. In India it is a well-known practice that when the executant of as document is illiterate he simply touches the pen wherewith some one else signs his name for him. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal vs. Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal,(1950 S.C.J.364 at p.373: AIR 1950 SC 265). The affixing of the facsimile of a name either by the testator or by somebody else, is suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
