9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1943-44 was made on the 24th March, 1944, personally signed by the other 6 partners of the firm and was accompanied by the deed of partnership which also had been signed by those 6 partners. The Special Income-tax Officer, Nagpur, rejected the application on the ground that the deed itself was not valid inasmuch as it had not been signed by all the partners mentioned in the body and there was no signature of Gokulchand on the deed and the application. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against this decision of the Special Income-tax Officer on the 24th April, 1944. Gokulchand appended his signature to the deed of partnership in the Seoni Jail on the 9th January, 1945. The appeal was heard before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 20th March, 1947, and he passed an order on the 17th February, 1948, cancelling the order of the Special Income-tax Officer and directing him to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Gokulchand both on the application for registration and the deed of partnership. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar, an appeal was filed against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state that no application was submitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The allegation made by the appellant was properly investigated subsequently and the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant did not appear to have put in the application dated 20th March, 1947, as alleged. This being the position the Tribunal stated that no change in the statement of case was called for as suggested by the appellant. It was on this statement of case by the Tribunal that the referred question came to be determined by the High Court. Before the High Court the appellant had applied on the 27th November, 1950, that the three certified copies of the three applications dated 20th March, 1947, made by the appellant to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with their originals should be sent for by the High Court from the Income-tax Tribunal and an order had been made accordingly. The High Court was of the opinion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have ordered registration of the firm provided there was an application before him duly signed by all the partners. As, however, there was no such application, he could not have directed the Income-tax Officer to register the firm a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t challenged by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings nor in the statement of case before us. Counsel for the appellant, however, relying on a passage in the "Law and Practice of Income-tax by Kanga and Palkhivala", 3rd Ed., at page 754, urged that it was not necessary that the partnership agreement should be signed by all the partners and if the agreement had not been signed by one of the partners but that partner had assented to the agreement and put it forward along with the other partners for registration, the agreement would be admissible for registration. In the first instance, it was not open to the appellant to urge any point which was not taken in the statement of case and even if it was open to him to urge that contention we do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the statement above referred to in view of the construction which we put on rule 2 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. The rules were framed under section 26A(2) of the Act and had statutory force. Under rule 2, the application for registration of the firm was to be made to the Income-tax Officer and the particulars contained in the instrument of partnershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeking his permission under rule 2(c) of the Indian Income-tax Rules" but the same had been rejected by the Tribunal as a result of proper investigation conducted by it subsequently, the Tribunal stating that they were satisfied that the assessee did not appear to have put in an application dated the 20th March, 1947, as alleged. The reference was heard by the High Court on this statement of case prepared by the Tribunal and no steps were taken by the appellant before the High Court for having the statement of case amended by the Tribunal or for having a further statement of case submitted by the Tribunal recording therein the facts alleged by the appellant. We must, therefore, decide this appeal on the facts stated in the statement of case by the Tribunal and on the basis that the application for registration dated the 20th March, 1947, signed by all the partners personally including Gokulchand was not before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If that was the position, the only power which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had under rule 2(c) was to accord permission to the appellant to make the application in proper form to the Income-tax Officer signed by all the partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
