9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the assessee-firm on the basis of that application for the assessment year 1971-72 ? " The assessee claiming to be a firm of seven partners constituted under a partnership deed dated May 11, 1966, applied for registration to the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer refused to recognise the existence of the firm. He observed that the partnership deed was not signed by one of the alleged partners, Sri I.A. Patel, and the application for registration was also not signed by all the partners. He further found that there were disputes among the partners, that Sri I.A. Patel had filed a suit against the other partners for settlement of accounts, that he was not accepted as a partner by others and that, therefore, there was no (genuine) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application was due to disputes among the partners which resulted in a suit being filed by Shri I. A. Patel in court and settlement among the partners subsequently and, in the circumstances, the Income-tax Officer should have condoned the delay and granted registration on the basis of the belated application. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT v. Dineshchandra Industries [1975] 100 ITR 660. The Tribunal accepted these contentions and it observed that whether Shri 1. A. Patel was a partner or not was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Theatres, a sister concern of the assessee, in which the other partners were also partners. In that case, the Income-tax Officer held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipulated unlike in the case of an application for registration that the partnership deed should be signed by all the partners. As regards the second requirement, it was held that the application for registration, when it was initially filed, was not signed by Shri I. A. Patel and signed by other partners only, the omission being on account of differences between Shri I. A. Patel and other partners, but ultimately before the assessment was completed, a settlement was reached among the partners and an application in Form No. 11 duly signed by all the partners including Shri I. A. Patel was filed on February 8, 1973, before the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal was, therefore, of the opinion that the Income-tax Officer should have accepted thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no appeal was provided against the refusal to condone the delay in the submission of application and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed on the preliminary ground. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal which held that the Income-tax Officer should have given an opportunity to the assessee to file a proper application in consonance with the departmental instruction in this behalf and directed the Income-tax Officer to give such opportunity to the assessee and to consider the application for registration afresh. On a reference, the High Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal against the order refusing to condone the delay under section 184(4) and consequently refusing registration was competent. The Guj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
