1984 (9) TMI 76 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT AHMEDABAD-B Grants Registration Benefits to Assessee Under Section 185

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT AHMEDABAD-B ruled in favor of the assessee in appeals against the denial of registration benefits under s. 185. The Tribunal ... - Issues:1. Entitlement to the benefit of registration under s. 1852. Dispute over the division of profits3. Requirement of maintaining books of accounts for registrationAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT AHMEDABAD-B involved appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the AAC, Surat, confirming the ITO's decision that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of registration under s. 185. The facts of the case were undisputed, with the assessee firm being constituted under a partnership deed executed among three individuals. The business activities included job work related to civil construction, with no formal books of accounts maintained except for a bank account where receipts and withdrawals were recorded. The partnership was registered with the Registrar of Firms, and applications for registration were filed in time with no defects. The ITO, however, denied registration citing the absence of books of accounts to verify the division of profits as per the partnership deed. The assessee argued that the bank account sufficed for determining profits division and that actual division had been made, supported by a statement accompanying the return. The ITO's reasoning was deemed insufficient, as no evidence was presented to disprove the division as per the statement. The assessee cited case law to support their claim for registration.The departmental representative contended that the absence of books cast doubt on the actual division of profits, referencing a Supreme Court judgment. Upon examination, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to registration benefits as a genuine firm, noting that technical deviations in maintaining books did not negate the firm's authenticity. It was clarified that full books of accounts were not always necessary, and other methods could suffice for profit distribution as per the partnership deed. The burden was placed on the ITO to disprove the allocation shown in the return, which was considered valid unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal distinguished a Supreme Court judgment cited by the departmental representative, emphasizing the lack of evidence in the present case to challenge the profit division. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the ITO to grant registration to the assessee, ruling in favor of the appeals.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the entitlement to registration benefits under s. 185, the dispute over profit division, and the necessity of maintaining books of accounts for registration purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the genuineness of the firm despite bookkeeping discrepancies, highlighting the sufficiency of alternative methods for profit allocation verification as per the partnership deed.