Genuineness of Partnership Deed: applicant must prove real partners; bogus deeds justify refusal of tax registration.

Income tax registration of a firm may be refused where the partnership instrument is shown to be bogus; tax authorities may assess direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether a deed records a genuine partnership or is a device to evade tax, and factors such as delayed execution, absence of capital contributions, continued maintenance by one party, lack of profit application by alleged partners, and timing of profit distribution are legally relevant; the applicant bears the onus of proving the genuineness of the partnership and reality of named partners, and the tax authority's refusal and dismissal of the application under Section 66(3) was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income Tax authorities were entitled to refuse registration of a firm under the Income-tax law when the instrument of partnership was shown by evidence to be bogus; (ii) Whether the onus of proving that the persons named in the instrument were real partners lay on the applicant seeking registration.

Analysis: The Court examined authorities establishing that the instrument of partnership referred to for registration must be a genuine document and that income tax authorities may consider direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether a deed embodies a real partnership or is a device to evade tax. The Court considered the facts: delayed execution and registration of the deed, absence of capital contributions by the alleged partners, continued maintenance of the alleged partners by the principal partner, lack of proof of application of profits by the alleged partners, and the timing and manner of profit distribution. On the onus point the Court analysed precedent holding that the party applying for registration must prove the existence of a genuine partnership and the reality of the persons claimed to be partners.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Income Tax Officer was entitled to refuse registration because the partnership deed was not shown to embody a genuine partnership and that the onus of proving the genuineness of the partnership and that the named persons were real partners rested on the applicant; the application under Section 66(3) is dismissed and the decision of the tax authorities is upheld against the assessee.

---