9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in tea. It came into existence with effect from 31st Nov., 1967 and consisted of following two partners 1. Shri Dhansukhlal Harkisondas 70 per cent 2. Shri Ashwinchandra Dhansukhlal 30 per cent There was a change in the constitution of the firm with effect from 7th Nov., 1972 when Shri Pravinchandra Dhansukhlal was admitted as a partner. This firm was granted registration under the IT Act and has deen assessed as such. On 10th Dec., 1978, on the partners Shri Ashwinkumar Dhansukhlal suddenly disappeared. His whereabouts were not known. This was published in newspapers also in the last week of February, 1978. A police complaint was also filed but of no avail. This partner Shri Ashwinchand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hwinchandra Dhansukhlal Gandhi. Thus Shri D.H. Gandhi signed this form for continuation of registration for asst. yr. 1979-80 on behalf of Shri Ashwinchandra Dhansukhlal Gandhi missing partner. ITO completed the assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80 on 15th march 1982 on a total income of Rs. 1,12,194. He also passed an order allowing continuation of registration to the firm on the basis of aforesaid application." 3. According to the CIT the continuation of registration allowed to the firm was not in accordance with law and thus erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. After considering the submissions he directed the ITO to treat the firm as an unregistered firm. He rejected the contentions raised before him as under: (i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip held that only the partners of the firm on the day of signing the declaration in Form No. 12 are required to sign the same and not the partners who were entitled to profit of the previous year. Applying the said ratio the assessee should have been given an opportunity to file the declaration signed by all the partners so as to rectify the defect as provided under s. 85 of the Act. It was further clarified that even today the partner is missing and not traced and 7 years have passed and this period amounts to a case of civil death. 5. The ld. departmental representative supported the order passed by the CIT and further relied upon decision reported in the case CIT vs. Jagannath Pyarelal (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 191 : (1985) 156 ITR 220 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not traceable inspite of lapse of long period of more than seven years. Therefore, Form No. 12 was required to be signed by some person on his behalf and that was done and accepted by the ITO. It is not the case of the CIT that father was not authorised to sign in this behalf or he was not entitled under law to represent the partner. In fact no such finding is given in this regard by the CIT. Therefore, on this aspect there was no error on the part of the ITO. Again it is also not the case of the CIT that the ITO accepted Form No. 12 without any inquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that order passed by the ITO was erroneous. 6.1. From the assessment order it is seen that share of the profit coming to Shri Ashwinchandra is Rs. 29,200. Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
