9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee-firm had applied for renewal of registration under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The ITO found that year after year the profit or loss of the assessee-firm was not being distributed but carried forward in the books of the firm and, therefore, the firm was not entitled to renewal of the registration. He, therefore, refused to renew the registration of the firm. When the firm took ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal that no material was produced to show that the profits were either distributed or credited to the individual account of the partners of the firm. In a very brief order, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal and observed : " The assessee's authorised representative was not in a position to place before us any material to show that there has been distribution of the profits among the partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel, it was sufficient compliance with the provisions of s. 26A read with the Rules if the shares of the profits are credited to the accounts of the partners. According to the learned counsel, this has been done and the authorities were, therefore, not right when they refused to renew the registration of the firm. It is not possible for us to read the observations made by the Tribunal that no ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the learned counsel, the profits have been distributed in the sense that the share of each partner has been credited to his account. It is difficult to entertain this grievance since the Tribunal has clearly observed that no material has been placed before it to show that the profits were distributed between the partners. It was for the assessee to produce the necessary material before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s incumbent on the part of the assessee-firm to have divided the previous year's profits before it makes its application for renewal. The Supreme Court has in that case referred to rr. 2, 3 and 6 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, and s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act. 1922. In our view, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the AAC as well as the ITO. The referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
