9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee-firm for the assessment year 1971-72 (and in the other case 1972-73) ? "pertaining to two succeeding assessment years said to arise out of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the respondentfirm. These are the subject matters of Income-tax Case No. 28 of 1977 and Income-tax Case No. 1 of 1978, respectively. The assessee-firm was constituted with effect from April 1, 1970. partnership deed in regard thereto was executed on April 6, 1970. The object of the firm was to run a liquor contract under licences obtained from the Government. Under those licences, the assessee could undertake wholesale vending as also retail sale within the specified areas. The assessee applied for registration of the firm under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpliedly means acceptance, on the part of the Revenue, the existence of a firm as indicated in the instrument of partnership dated 6-4-1970. There is no controversy in this case that any of the requirements as laid down under section 184 were lacking in the case. On the contrary, the partnership firm for which the assessee claimed registration benefit of section 185, is evidenced by regular deed in which the individual shares of the partners are specified and further the allocation has been made in accordance with the partnership agreement. Since the application under rules was also made by the firm in time and when the genuineness of the partnership was not doubted, there was absolutely no justification for the taxing authorities to have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... succeeding year, renewal thereof. It had to be ascertained by the authorities, and rightly, whether, in fact, the registered firm had taken birth as envisaged under section 184 of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that it had come into existence and the Tribunal endorsed that view. The advisory jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked to correct any errors of fact or even of inferences in respect of a given set of facts. This court in CIT v. Suraj Bhan Co. [1983] 144 ITR 943, in somewhat similar circumstances, declined such a prayer when the assessee-firm therein was additionally found to indulge in speculation business, an activity unlawful, which did not debar the Income-tax Tribunal to hold as a fact that the subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
