9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t think a firm whose main partner forged the signatures of all, other partners, though such partners are his sons, is entitled to any relief from this court. Therefore, the firm as constituted vide partnership deed dated December 3, 1993, is not entitled for registration for the assessment year 1972-73 and renewal for later years. - - - - - Dated:- 5-11-2004 - Judge(s) : C. N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. JUDGMENT C. N. Ramachandran Nair J.- The petitioner is challenging exhibit P8 revisional order of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), confirming the cancellation of registration of the firm by the Assessing Officer under section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the officer again declined registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Act for the year 1971-72 on the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence entitled for registration under the Act. Since registration was declined for the year 1971-72, renewal of registration was declined for the subsequent years 1972-73 to 1976-77. The orders so issued, namely, exhibits P2 to P7 were the subject-matter of revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax who vide exhibit P8 rejected the revision petitions. It is against exhibit P8 order the petitioner has filed this writ petition. I have heard Sri P. Balakrishnan, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. X.R. Menon, senior standing counsel, for the Income-tax Department. Counsel for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity to cure the defects does not give right to the petitioner to substitute the entire documents and claim benefit based on the fresh documents. He has also submitted that the defects referred to in section 185(2) are defects in the application for registration and not defects pertaining to partnership deed as such. Alternately he contended that even if the petitioner is entitled to cure the defect in the partnership deed, the same does not entitle the petitioner to furnish an entirely new deed executed on December 3, 1993, in the place of the earlier deed produced. I have gone through the judgment of this court in I.T.R. case (see [1992] 195 ITR 716) produced by the petitioner based on which the impugned proceedings are issued. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d document cannot be said to be a genuine document. Secondly, the Commissioner of Income-tax rightly pointed out that the partnership deed should be the result of consensus among the partners and unless it is signed by all the partners, it is no partnership at all. Therefore, the defect of the original document, i.e., partnership deed, containing forged signatures of all the partners except one, is not a defect that could be cured. This court only gave an opportunity to cure the defects which does not entitle the petitioner to execute a fresh partnership deed to consider registration based on it. Counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that on account of the indifferent grant of registration to the firm for the assessment year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
