TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AAC on these points may be set aside and the order of the ITO restored. The assessee applied for registration of the firm by filing Form No. 11 before the ITO. The date of birth of one of the partner, namely, Sri Pawan Kumar More was disclosed as 21st Sept., 1961 as per school certificate and the partnership deed was executed on 21st May, 1979. The ITO on these facts observed that on the date of the execution of the partnership deed Sri Pawan Kumar More did not attain majority. The ITO further considered the affidavit of the mother of Sri Pawan Kumar More and the horoscope but he was not convinced that the age in the school certificate was falsely written. He rejected the horoscope on the ground that it does not bear the name of its wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department has come up in second appeal before us. The departmental representative urged before us that the AAC was not justified in reversing the finding the ITO and directing the ITO to allow registration and to treat the status of the assessee firm as that of a registered firm. It was also contended that the age recorded in the school certificate is final and conclusive. On the other hand, the authorised representative urged before us that at the time of admission in the school correct age is not recorded and it is a general practice that persons give false age of boy at the time of admission to a school and the ITO was not justified in rejecting the affidavit of the mother of Sri Pawan Kumar More who specifically stated that Sri Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contained in the affidavit regarding the age of Sri pawan Kumar More. She has specifically stated that Sri Pawan Kumar was born on 28th Aug., 1960 but the ITO did not cross examine her on this point. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the authorised representative that the affidavit of Smt. Durga Devi mother of Sri Pawan Kumar More goes unrebutted. Besides the ITO ought to have recorded a statement of Smt. Durga Devi and Sri Pawan Kumar under s. 131 but he has not done so. The AAC placed reliance on the earlier decision of the Tribunal of Jabalpur Bench and considered prevailing circumstances of the case. The authorised representative also referred to the ratio of the case of Sri Brijmohan Singh vs. Priya Brata Narayan Singh AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
