9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnership firm, under the name and style of M/s. Delhi Sanitary Stores, Jaipur, was brought into existence on January 21, 1961, and the partnership deed was executed on April 30, 1961. This partnership comprised of two partners, namely, Rajesh Chand Gupta and Sushil Chand Gupta, having equal shares in the profit and loss of the firm. The above-named firm was assessed as a registered firm for the assessment year 1962-63. By a dissolution deed, dated January 11, 1963, the above-named firm was dissolved with effect from January 1, 1963. On January 1, 1963, a new firm, consisting of Kailash Chand Gupta, Kishan Chand Gupta, Rajesh Chand Gupta and Sushil Chand Gupta as partners came into being, each having a one-fourth share in the profit and loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant submits that the defects in the application for registration made to the Income-tax Officer may be condoned and registration be granted'. " As already noted above, on an application dated April 11, 1969, the above noted question has been referred by the Tribunal with the statement of the case for being answered by this court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revenue is that the question regarding the genuineness of the firm was not raised at any stage either before the ITO or the AAC and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise a new point and decide the question of registration on the ground of the genuineness of the firm. He further urged that at the most the Tribunal could have remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of the appeal. The words 'pass such orders as the Tribunal thinks fit' include all the powers (except possibly the power of enhancement) which are conferred upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by section 31 of the Act." In CIT v. Sayaji Mills Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 26, 33, while dealing with the provisions of the Act of 1922, the Gujarat High Court observed as under : " It would appear from the provisions of section 33(4), as construed by the Supreme Court, that the Legislature has conferred upon the Appellate Tribunal wide powers in dealing with appeals preferred to it. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is undoubtedly restricted to the subject-matter of the appeal but once it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
