9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not found any fault with the said application. That the ground regarding minor being a member of the associations of persons was not valid – Thus, assessee is entitled to registration - - - - - Dated:- 2-12-2004 - Judge(s) : D. A. MEHTA., MS. H. N. DEVANI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.A. Mehta J.- This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A", at the behest of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration?" The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 11 which was duly signed by all the partners and accompanied by a copy of the partnership deed as required by the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Assessing Officer however, was of the opinion that the registration could not be granted to the partnership firm as the firm was not a genuine firm because the aforesaid three individuals, representing their respective associations of persons, were not the real partners. That some of the members of the said associations of persons were minors. That the associations of persons had been constituted with the sole object of reducing the tax liabilities. He, accordingly, refused registration. The said order came to be challenged by way of appeal before the Appellate Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and complied with the requirements of the statute in the light of CIT v. Sivakasi Match Exporting Co. [1964] 53 ITR 204 (SC). The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the order of the first appellate authority. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Revenue, has been heard. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. Mr. Bhatt has very fairly pointed out that the controversy is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashik Lal and Co. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 458, wherein the court has laid down as under: "The application for registration of a firm has to be made under section 184 of the Income-tax Act. It is specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract of partnership has no concern with the obligation of the partner to others in respect of their shares of profit in the partnership. It only regulates the rights and liabilities of the partners. A partner may be the karta of a joint Hindu family; he may be a trustee; he may enter into a sub-partnership with others; he may, under an agreement, express or implied, be the representative of a group of persons; he may be a benamidar for another. In all such cases he occupies a dual position. Qua the partnership, he functions in his personal capacity; qua the third parties, in his representative capacity. The third parties, whom one of the partners represents, cannot enforce their rights against the other partners nor the other partners can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
