9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this issue, the facts that we have to take into consideration are as under : 3. The assessee is a registered firm working under the name and style of Luxmi Rice Mills, Pehowa. It had been assessed as a registered firm for the assessment year prior to the assessment year under appeal. Therefore, on 10-7-1978, when the return of income was filed by the assessee, the assessee also enclosed Form No. 12 for continuation of registration in terms of section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The firm actually consists of six partners, one of whom is Smt. Sarla Singal. 4. On receipt of the above documents, the ITO compared the signatures of Smt. Sarla Singal as given in Form No. 12 supra, and as given in the instrument of partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that signatures placed on Form No. 12 filed on 12-7-1978 were not hers, held that form submitted could not be considered for granting continuation of registration to the assessee-firm under section 184(7). He, accordingly, refused to allow continuation of registration to the firm for the year under appeal. 7. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he went to this aspect of the matter in detail and examined personally experts of both the sides. After doing so, he came to the conclusion that the opinion of the expert produced by the assessee was not reliable. However, in view of the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen her statement was recorded on 4-11-1978, she had told the ITO that those were her signatures. However, when the ITO went on asking her again and again she got confused and stated what was recorded in her statement on 4-11-1978 and which was adversely interpreted by the ITO. She, however, clarified that even on that date she accepted the signatures in Form No. 12 for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 as her own. When the ITO wanted to know how there was such a wide variation between the two signatures, she explained to him that one of the signatures on Form No. 12 was signed by her casually while she was sitting with a baby in her arms, hence the difference in signatures. Thus, we find on facts that there is nothing conclusively p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
