9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54, but within the accounting period for the subsequent assessment year 1954-55. The Income-tax Officer refused registration because he was not satisfied that the firm was a genuine firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the assessee took the same view and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no material on the basis of which the genuineness of the firm could be questioned and the assessee firm, therefore, was a genuine firm. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and directed that the assessee firm may be registered for both the assessment years. The department made an application to the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring for the assessee, has urged before us that the question referred to us by the Tribunal did not arise out of its order because the contention that registration could not be allowed as the instrument of partnership was beyond the accounting year was not raised by the department before the Tribunal nor was it the basis of the decision of the income-tax authorities. The only ground on which the income-tax authorities had rejected the application for registration was that the firm was not genuine and the Tribunal had granted registration because it had held that the firm was a genuine one. Before the Tribunal, Mr. Dwarkadas says, the department was in the position of a respondent and it was not, therefore, permissible for the respondent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was a direct authority of the Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee, it was not argued by the parties and was lost sight of when dictating the order. We cannot, therefore, agree with the contention of Mr. Dwarkadas that the question referred to us by the Tribunal does not arise out of its order. The further submission of Mr. Dwarkadas that the department, which was the respondent before the Tribunal, could not have urged that contention before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it, is also not tenable. In the first place, the statement of the Tribunal to which we have already made a reference shows that the contention was taken even before the income-tax authorities. It was not, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of partnership was executed beyond the accounting period may appear to be somewhat unfair or unjust. The department itself appears to be aware of the hardship involved since we find from the observations of Hidayatullah J. in the Supreme Court decision (R.C. Mitter Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax: D.C. Auddy Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 36 ITR 194, 205; [1959] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 641), that the Board of Revenue has issued instructions that all firms should be registered whether the documents under which they were constituted existed in the accounting year or not provided the Income-tax Officer was satisfied about the genuineness of the firm. We have, however, to decide the question, which has been referred to us accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
