2004 (12) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Firm entitled to tax registration despite officer concerns. Partnership deed key.

The court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, a registered firm, regarding its entitlement to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite ... Firm – registration – AO was of the opinion that the registration could not be granted to the partnership firm as the firm was not a genuine firm because the three individuals, representing their respective associations of persons, were not the real partners. That some of the members of the said associations of persons were minors. That the associations of persons had been constituted with the sole object of reducing the tax liabilities. He, accordingly, refused registration. - Tribunal held that the assessee-firm had complied with the statutory requirements prescribed for seeking registration, and the Assessing Officer had not found any fault with the said application. That the ground regarding minor being a member of the associations of persons was not valid – Thus, assessee is entitled to registration Issues:1. Entitlement to registration under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The case involved a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the assessee to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee, a registered firm, faced a question of law concerning its entitlement to registration for the accounting year ending on March 31, 1983. The firm underwent a change in its constitution during the accounting period, leading to the retirement of three individuals representing private trusts and their subsequent rejoining as managers of their respective associations of persons. The Assessing Officer initially refused registration, citing concerns about the genuineness of the firm due to the involvement of individuals representing associations of persons, some of whom were minors, with the objective of tax liability reduction.The matter was appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, who allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to grant registration. The Revenue then challenged this decision before the Tribunal, which found that the assessee-firm had fulfilled all statutory requirements for registration. The Tribunal held that the presence of minors in the associations of persons did not invalidate the registration process, citing relevant legal precedents such as M.M. Ipoh v. CIT and CIT v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as the partnership deed was genuine and complied with statutory requirements, registration should not be refused based on tax liability reduction strategies.In the absence of representation from the respondent-assessee, the court considered the settled legal position highlighted in the case of Rashik Lal and Co. v. CIT. The court reiterated that the individual shares of partners must be specified in the partnership deed, and all partners must personally sign the deed and the registration application. The court emphasized that a person joining a firm as a representative of an entity still holds an individual position within the firm, and any profit-sharing agreements with third parties do not alter the partners' positions under the Partnership Act or the Income-tax Act. Based on the legal principles and the Tribunal's findings, the court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, disposing of the reference without costs.