Firm granted registration despite minor deviation from partnership deed, emphasizing compliance with key requirements.

The Tribunal granted registration to the firm, allowing the appeal. The delay of four days in closing the accounts was deemed a minor deviation from the partnership deed's provision, not compromising the firm's genuineness. The Supreme Court's emphasis on meeting key partnership formation requirements, despite the delay, supported the decision. The Tribunal justified the grant of registration, highlighting that minor deviations may not warrant refusal, as seen in precedent cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to registration of a firm based on the closure of accounts beyond the specified date in the partnership deed.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the assessee, a firm with four partners, regarding the denial of registration for the assessment year 1981-82. The partnership deed specified the closure of accounts on an auspicious day before the end of March each year. However, the accounts were closed on 4th April, 1981, due to the unavailability of an auspicious day in March. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) refused registration on the grounds of deviation from the deed's provision. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) was unsuccessful.

The assessee contended that the delay in closing the accounts by four days did not constitute a significant violation of the partnership deed. The Departmental Representative opposed, citing precedents like Samiur Rahman & Bros. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Hassanally & Sons, emphasizing discrepancies leading to the denial of registration in those cases.

The Tribunal analyzed the precedents cited by both parties. In the Samiur Rahman & Bros. case, material discrepancies in the firm's constitution led to the refusal of registration. Similarly, in the Hassanally & Sons case, discrepancies regarding capital contribution resulted in the denial of registration. However, the Tribunal highlighted the principle that minor deviations may not warrant refusal of registration, as seen in K.D. Kamath & Co. vs. CIT, Mysore. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized the key requirements for partnership formation, which were met in the present case despite the delayed closure of accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the firm's genuineness was not compromised by the minor deviation from the deed's closure date, thus justifying the grant of registration.

The Tribunal granted registration to the firm and allowed the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a one-day delay in the proceedings but condoned it due to its occurrence in the past.

---