9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in confirming the refusal of registration by the Income-tax Officer relying on the ratio of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar as reported in [1978] 115 ITR 796 ? " The assessment year concerned herein is 1975-76. A partnership deed was executed on July 29, 1974, with effect from May 1, 1974, according to which there were three major partners, viz., R. Gopal, V. Chandrasen Rao and R. Eswaraiah. Two minors, viz., Baby Anita and Master Pawan Kumar, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On January 10, 1975, the firm was reconstituted with effect from J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period January 1, 1975, onwards. For the same reasons, he was of the opinion that refusal of registration to the previous firm which was in existence before January 1, 1975, was not proper. The assessee as well as the Department both filed appeals against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The contention put forward by the Department was that there was only a change in the constitution under the deed dated January 10, 1975, that it was only a case where a single firm was in existence for the entire period and that, therefore, registration could not have been granted even for the first period, i.e., up to December 31, 1974. The assessee's contention, however, was that if ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partnership should necessarily be signed by the guardian of the minor: It also held that the signature of the guardian of the minor is not a necessary requirement for the validity of the partnership. This decision has been followed by a Division Bench of this court in R.C. No. 218 of 1980 disposed of on March 5, 1987 (Srinivasa Stainless Steel and Moulding Works v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 1). The principle that emerges is that it is not necessary in law that the guardian of the minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership should necessarily sign either the partnership deed or the application for registration. Of course, it is necessary to show that he had consented to the admission of the minors to the benefits of the partnership. This con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been given, it has now become necessary to give such an opportunity to the assessee. In these circumstances, we decline to answer the questions referred with an observation that the Tribunal, while passing final orders under section 260 of the Act, shall call upon the assessee to produce evidence, if any, in his possession to show that the guardian of the said three minors had in fact consented to their admission to the benefits of the partnership in January, 1975. We make it clear that the evidence called for need not be by direct evidence of such consent but can be inferred from the conduct or other evidence, if any. The Tribunal shall look into the material, if any, produced in pursuance of such a direction and pass appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
