2012 (6) TMI 541 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms assessee's firm status under Income-tax Act, criticizes Assessing Officer's denial

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions regarding the assessee's firm status and compliance with the ... Sufficient compliance of Section 184(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - status of partnership firm vis-a -vis association of persons - notarised or certified copy of partnership deed as substitute for original filed with Registrar of Companies - rejection of a technical view taken by the Assessing OfficerSufficient compliance of Section 184(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - notarised or certified copy of partnership deed as substitute for original filed with Registrar of Companies - status of partnership firm vis-a -vis association of persons - Whether the assessee had complied with the requirement of Section 184(2) so as to be treated as a partnership firm for assessment purposes - HELD THAT: - The Court affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT that the assessee, though unable to produce the original partnership deed (which was filed with the Registrar of Companies), had furnished a typed copy signed by all partners before the Assessing Officer, furnished a notarised copy during assessment proceedings and produced the certified copy at the appellate stage. Having regard to these facts, the authorities correctly held there was sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement and that the Assessing Officer's denial of firm status and treatment as an AOP was an unduly technical approach. The appellate and tribunal conclusions that the assessee should be treated as a firm were therefore justified and sustainable. [Paras 4, 5]Appeal dismissed; orders of the CIT(A) and ITAT directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as a firm are upheld.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A) and ITAT orders holding that there was sufficient compliance with Section 184(2) and that the assessee is to be treated as a partnership firm for Assessment Year 1995-96. Issues:1. Challenge to order by revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Denial of firm status and disallowance of deductions by Assessing Officer.3. Compliance with Section 184(2) of the Act regarding partnership deed.4. Appeal by revenue against order of CIT(A) and affirmation by ITAT.5. Justification of treating assessee as a firm instead of Association of Persons (AOP).6. Technical view adopted by Assessing Officer.Analysis:1. The case involves an appeal by the revenue challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year 1995-96 under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Assessing Officer initially denied the firm status to the assessee during assessment proceedings due to the unavailability of the certified copy of the Partnership Deed, resulting in the disallowance of deductions of salary and interest paid to partners. The CIT(A) later allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as a firm.3. The main issue revolved around the compliance with Section 184(2) of the Act regarding the partnership deed. The CIT(A) held that the partnership deed duly authenticated by a notary was submitted along with a typed copy signed by all partners, which was considered sufficient compliance. The ITAT also noted the submission of a notarized copy of the partnership deed during assessment proceedings.4. The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order before the ITAT, which affirmed the decision by considering that the original partnership deed was filed before the Registrar of Companies and a typed copy along with a notarized copy was submitted. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, leading to the current appeal.5. The High Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal, stating that the CIT(A) did not err in holding that there was sufficient compliance with Section 184(2) of the Act. The court agreed with the orders directing the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as a firm instead of an Association of Persons, especially considering the submission of the certified copy of the partnership deed before the CIT(A).6. The court concluded that the technical view adopted by the Assessing Officer in denying the firm status was not justified. It upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT, emphasizing that the denial of firm status was too technical and unwarranted.In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue, affirming the orders of the lower authorities regarding the status of the assessee as a firm and the compliance with the requirements of the Income-tax Act.