Firm registration requires proof of operative partnership during the accounting year; later deed and Form 11 are insufficient alone.

Firm registration depends on proof that the partnership instrument was operative and the firm existed and carried on business during the relevant accounting year. A supplementary deed executed later cannot, by itself, establish such existence or the terms governing the material period, especially where prior existence is not shown. Form No. 11 may support a registration claim only when it is consistent with the surrounding material; it is not sufficient contemporaneous proof where the firm's existence for the necessary period is unproved. Later documents cannot replace evidence of actual existence and business activity for the relevant year.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in giving weight to the supplementary deed dated 1 February 1977. (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the application for registration in Form No. 11 as contemporaneous evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the supplementary deed dated 1 February 1977 could be relied upon for the purpose of registration of the firm.

Analysis: Registration of a firm depends on the existence and operation of a partnership instrument during the relevant accounting period. A supplementary deed executed later cannot, by itself, establish that the firm existed or carried on business in accordance with the alleged terms during the material year, particularly when there was no evidence showing the firm's existence prior to the relevant assessment period.

Conclusion: The finding on this issue was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether Form No. 11 could be treated as contemporaneous evidence of the firm's existence and entitlement to registration.

Analysis: An application for registration may support the claim only if it is consistent with the surrounding material and the firm is shown to have existed and functioned during the relevant year. Where the return and surrounding circumstances indicate that the firm had not been proved to exist for the necessary period, Form No. 11 cannot be treated as sufficient contemporaneous proof to sustain registration.

Conclusion: The finding on this issue was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered in the negative, and the claim for registration was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A firm is entitled to registration only if the partnership instrument was operative and the firm's existence and business activity are proved for the relevant accounting year; later documents or registration forms cannot substitute for such proof.

---