9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled on March 30, 1984, before the Income-tax Officer, F-Ward, District-II, Guwahati. The Income-tax Officer, on a scrutiny of the deed noticed that the partnership-firm was originally constituted with three members as per the deed of partnership dated March 24, 1977. The partners were, namely, (1) Muralidhar Rajkhowa, (2) Smt. Anuradha Barooah, and (3) Sri Ranjit Bora, The new partnership was formed with effect from April 1, 1983, in the same name and style. As per the said partnership deed dated April 1, 1983, Sri Muralidhar Rajkhowa and Smt. Anuradha Barooah decided and agreed to admit Smt. Nirupama Barooah and Sri Pradip Kumar Kalita as new partners in the said partnership with effect from April 1, 1983. Accordingly, an application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defect remained as it was. The Commissioner of Income-tax accordingly held that the Income-tax Officer rightly refused the registration of the firm. Against that decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati. The Tribunal also was of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer rightly refused registration. While passing that order, the Tribunal relied on a decision of this High Court in Singh Brothers and Co. v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 63. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. K. H. Choudhury, appearing for the applicant, submits that the Tribunal rejected the deed of rectification only on the ground that the rectification was made after the expiry of the accounting year and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the accounting year could not be allowed and the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of refusal of registration for the assessment year. But the present case is somewhat different so far as the facts are concerned. Here, the deed cannot be said to be void if the mistake is corrected and the correction is accepted by the authority. Therefore, in our opinion, it was not proper for the Tribunal to reject the prayer for registration of the firm without first considering as to whether there was a genuine mistake and whether the explanation given by the assessee in respect of the said mistake was acceptable or not. If the Tribunal finds on enquiry that the mistake was genuine and the explanation given by the assessee is acceptab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
