1993 (11) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), in respect of the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The common question proposed in these applications is as under : " Whether in law and on the facts of the case in granting registration to the firm which was wrong and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was set aside. Registration of the firm had been cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the sole ground that the profits were not allocated amongst the partners in the share ratio as provided in the instrument of partnership. Up to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee was throughout assessed in the status of a registered firm. In the previous year relevant to theassessment year 1983- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the share ratio in which the profits were to be allocated. The Tribunal found that after the error in allocation of profit was noticed, the same was corrected by reallocating the profits and dividing the same in terms of the instrument of partnership. The firm was held to be a genuine firm. In accepting the case that for a clerical mistake, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of registr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Rules framed thereunder, it is incumbent upon the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the firm. The mistake committed by the munim in allocating the profits was capable of being corrected and reconciled in terms of the partnership agreement. Indeed, this was done in the instant case before the assessment was made. As shown earlier, failure to divide the profits amongst the partners in ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onest mistake. Even the question proposed in the applications does not challenge the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this respect. The mistake being a bona fide one, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct and the firm was entitled to registration. For what has been stated above, these applications are rejected by saying that the order of the Income-tax Appellat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X