TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the firm was a genuine one and in granting registration under section 185 to the assessee-firm " ? The assessee-firm contended that it came into existence with effect from April 1, 1986, under a partnership deed dated December 21, 1987, and it was comprised of six partners. The accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1988-89 ended on March 31, 1988. On March 2, 1988, the assessee-firm applied in Form No. 11 for the registration of the firm under section 185 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1988-89. The application was duly supported by the original partnership deed. However, the Income-tax Officer examined two of the partners, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in appropriate cases the income-tax authorities could show a refusal of registration of the partnership firm and disbelieve in the existence of the firm itself. In Brijlal Madanlal v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 364 (Bom), it was held that the essentials for the registration of a firm are : (1) whether on behalf of the firm an application should be made to the Income-tax Officer by such person and at such times and containing such particulars and being in such form and verified in such manner as are prescribed by the rules ; (2) The firm should be constituted under an instrument of partnership ; (3) The instrument must specify the individual shares of the partners ; and (4) The partnership must be valid and genuine and must exist in terms specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has to find out whether there was a genuine partnership firm evidenced by a partnership deed. The fact that there is an order of assessment in respect of the firm does not preclude the examination of the question whether the firm was genuine or not. The cumulative effect of the facts in the case was that there was no evidence at all of any overt act by any of the partners doing anything regarding the management or the carrying on of the business except signing some letters and cheques and these were indicative of the fact that there was in fact no genuine firm and the firm was not entitled to registration. The fact that there was an order of assessment in respect of the firm did not preclude the examination of the question whether the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 ITR 369 (Raj), wherein it was given out, inter alia, that the question whether a person is a partner in a firm or whether a partnership is a genuine one, is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances and evidence in each case. The question of fact is erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence or if it is unreasonable or perverse. When a conclusion has been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts, established by evidence, the question whether that conclusion is sound or not, must be determined not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts put together. That was a case of a firm having five partners. It was held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
