TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a defect in the declaration filed in Form No. 12 which could be corrected subsequently by the partners of the firm ? " The assessee is a partnership firm. In the year in question it applied for registration in terms of section 184(7) of the Act. The application was, however, signed by only one of the partners. By order dated December 30, 1974, the assessee was asked to show cause why its application for registration under section 184(7) of the Act be not refused, as the application was not signed by all the partners. The very following day, i.e., on December, 31, 1974, the assessee filed fresh Form No. 12 with the signatures of all the partners. The original application having be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed an application for reference to this court. The Tribunal has thus referred the questions mentioned earlier for our opinion. In regard to the validity of the appeal which has been raised in the first question, for our opinion, it must be observed that the question is concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. Gyanchand Bedi [1987].163 ITR 693, This court, following the decision of this court in Madhur Jalpan V. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 351, held that where the appeal is against the order of assessment as well as against the rejection of the status of the assessee, appeal against the rejection of the stand in regard to status would be maintainable. The question whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the defect was in the application and not in the partnership deed. The defect was that all the partners had not signed. That defect was removed before the assessment order was passed. In our view, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were absolutely correct in holding that the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the defect. The defect having been rectified, registration could not be refused. In our view, therefore, the answer to the second question also must be in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was absolutely correct in holding that the defect in the declaration in Form No. 12 could be corrected subsequently by the partners of the firm. For all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
