Patna High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rameshwar Dayal Ratanlal on 20 September, 1985
Equivalent citations: [1985]156ITR411(PATNA)
JUDGMENT
1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, has referred the following question for our opinion:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing registration to the firm even though the deed of partnership was clearly ante-dated."
2. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee is a partnership firm. It applied for registration in terms of Section 185 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer (to be called "ITO") rejected the claim of the assessee to be registered as a firm on the ground that there was no partnership. The matter was taken up in appeal and the AAC reversed the finding of the ITO. The AAC held that the facts showed that there was a partnership deed validly executed and filed within time. He, therefore, set aside the order of the ITO and allowed the application for registration. The Department filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the AAC. The Tribunal upheld the order of the AAC. Thereafter, the Department got this reference made to us for our opinion.
3. The facts, in brief, are that a partnership agreement was executed by the partners on December 15, 1965. The said deed of partnership was filed before the ITO on August 20, 1966, along with Form No. 11. The further relevant fact is that the stamps for the deed were purchased on December 18, 1965. The ITO had held that since the stamp itself had been purchased on December 18, 1965 the agreement could not have been executed on December 15, 1965. The finding of fact recorded by the AAC as also by the Tribunal was that the document had in fact been executed some time between December 18, 1965, and August 20, 1966. Thus, the clear finding of fact concurrently recorded was that the document in fact had been executed after the purchase of the stamps. That is a finding of fact which cannot be challenged before us. Learned senior standing counsel was candid in accepting this position.
4. The further fact which cannot be disputed is that the deed of partnership was filed by the assessee during the relevant year in question. The Tribunal also recorded that there was no other material on record to show that the firm was not genuine and was not entitled to registration under the Act. Those being the facts and those being the findings recorded by the AAC and the Tribunal, there is no escape from the position that the Tribunal was absolutely correct in allowing registration to the firm.
5. For the reasons stated above, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal through its Assistant Registrar.