Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Punjab Sweet House on 18 September, 1985
53. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia relied on the decisions in Pratapmal Luxmickand v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 489 (SC) and Singh Bros.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.01 seconds)A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar And Ors. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 May, 1956
13. Learned Counsel for the Department drew our attention to the observations of Bhagwati, J., in Pratapmal Luxmichand v. Commissioner of Income-Tax at page 494, where the learned Judge pointed out:
Rampatmal Tirkha Ram vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 16 December, 1966
Again, the same principle seems to us to be deducible from the decision of their Lordships in Pratapmal Luxmichand v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In this case a partnership consisted of 7 members and the application for registration was signed by as many as 6 of them, the 7th being unable to sign as he was a security prisoner under the Defence of India Rules at that time. The Special Income-tax Officer, Nagpur, rejected the application both on the ground that the partnership deed itself had not been signed by all the partners mentioned in the body and, further, there was no signature of one of the partners on the application. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, and ordered that he do register the firm after obtaining the signatures of the 7th partner both on the application for registration and the deed of the partnership. On a further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and held that the Income-tax Officer was justified in refusing to register the firm as the application for registration was not signed by the aforesaid partner. The matter was then taken up on reference to the Nagpur High Court, which upheld that the order of the Tribunal, and it was eventually carried to the Supreme Court. In upholding the view taken by the High Court, their Lordships held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to direct held that the Income-tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of the 7th partner both on the application for registration and on the deed of partnership. It may be pointed out that as rule 2(c) stood at the relevant time a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership and specifying the individual shares of the partners could register with the Income-tax Officer even with the permission of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner hearing an appeal under section 30 of the Act before the assessment of the firm was confirmed, reduced, enhanced or annulled. It may be pertinent to mention here that this was a case under the rules which existed prior to 1952 and the rules were made more stringent in 1952 and these rules, as amended, did not contain any such provision. The facts of this case are somewhat difference, but it seems to us that it clearly furnishes unmistakable support for the view that an application for registration under section 26A must be signed personally by all the partners of the firm.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Associate Industrial Distributors on 14 January, 1981
In the case of Pratapmal Luxmichand v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 489, the Supreme Court also held that it was not necessary that a 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 other partners for registration, the agreement would be admissible for registration.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.B. Coal Traders on 19 November, 1985
In the case of Pratapmal Luxmichand v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 489 (SC), although this is a decision under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1922 Act"), and Rule 2(c) of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, the principles have been laid down clearly. In this case, an application for registration of a firm consisting of seven members under Section 26A of the 1922 Act was personally signed by six partners and was accompanied by the deed of partnership which also had been signed by those six partners. The Special Income-tax Officer rejected the application on the ground that the deed and the application were not signed by all the members or the partners. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Assistant Commissioner") cancelled the order of the Special Income-tax Officer and directed him to register the firm after obtaining the signature of the seventh partner both in the application for registration and in the deed of partnership and in those circumstances, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the only power which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had under Rule 2(c) was to accord permission to the appellants to make the application in proper form to the Income-tax Officer signed by all the partners personally including the 7th partner before the assessment was confirmed, reduced, enhanced or annulled, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to direct the Income-tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of the 7th partner in the deed of partnership. Thus, from this decision, it is evident that the defect in the application form can be removed but the defect in the deed of partnership cannot be removed.
Jagan Nath Pyare Lal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 February, 1973
In this connection reference may appropriately be made to Pratapmal Luxmichand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1956] 29 I.T.R. 489; [1956] S.C.R. 91 (S.C.)
Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Elembellery Estate on 26 June, 1997
A similar view is seen to have been taken by the apex court in Pratapmal Luxmichand v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 489 when it observed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could under rule 2C of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, accord permission to the assessee to make the application in the proper form to the Income-tax Officer signed by all the partners personally.
1