9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p deed produced by the assessee-firm before the ITO was defective in the sense that it was understamped and any subsequent rectification to the deed will be effective from the date of rectification as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act? " The facts have been succinctly stated in the statement of the case and we may briefly set out hereunder only those that are relevant for our purpose. The dispute in these cases relates to the assessee's right to registration of the partnership deed. The deed was undisputedly executed on September 3, 1973, on an insufficient stamp paper. The application for registration in Form No. 11A was filed by the assessee on June 20, 1974, along with the said instrument. The ITO rejected the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the previous year for the assessment year in respect of which registration is sought : ...... .." Section 184(5) provides : "The application shall be accompanied by the original instrument evidencing the partnership, together with a copy thereof: ........" There is no dispute that all these requirements have been complied with by the assessee while seeking registration of the firm in question. The only defect noticed was in the stamp duty payable on the instrument. Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, contains provisions relating to instruments not duly stamped. Section 34 states that instruments not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence. Section 35 states that when an instrument has been admitted in evidence s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phraseology between sections 35 and 36 it was urged that an instrument which is not duly stamped may be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty, but it cannot be acted upon because section 35 operates as a bar to the admission in evidence of the instrument not duly stamped as well as to its being acted upon, and the Legislature has by section 36 in the conditions set out therein removed the bar only against admission in evidence of the instrument. The argument ignores the true import of section 36. By that section an instrument once admitted in evidence shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that it has not been duly stamped. Section 36 does not prohibit a challenge against an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
