9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion of the High Court are as follows: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that in spite of the recital in the partnership deed dated October 16, 1971, about Smt. Sander Bai deemed to be a partner with effect from October 31, 1970, the firm was not entitled to registration as the partnership came into existence on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken as a partner in his place. The partnership deed recited that the firm would be deemed to have come into existence with effect from 31st October, 1970, and Smt. Sunder Bai would be deemed to be a partner with effect from that date. The newly constituted firm applied for registration for the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO refused to grant registration and this order was confirmed by the AAC. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he new firm could not take effect from 31 st October 1970, i.e., from a date anterior to the date of death of Balaprasad. A reading of the partnership deed dated 16th October, 1971, clearly shows that the new firm was constituted on account of the death of Balaprasad and his widow was taken as a partner in his place. This new firm could come into existence only with effect from 15th December, 1970 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th December, 1970. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has not given any finding that the partnership was not genuine. If the firm was not held to be not genuine, the Tribunal should not have confirmed the order refusing registration. It is also clear that although the firm was not in existence during a part of the previous year, still it was entitled to registration for the entire assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
