Partnership registration refused where deed defects, missing draft deed, and non-appearance of partners were not satisfactorily explained.

Registration of a partnership firm was refused because the partnership deed contained defects in execution and stamping, and the assessee did not rebut the revenue authorities' findings on related irregularities. The recorded defects included non-division of profits and losses, erasures and cuttings in the deed, non-production of the draft deed, and the partners' failure to appear before the assessing authority. A later plea that the defect was only a drafting mistake was not entertained because it had not been raised before the lower authorities. The refusal of registration was therefore sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal of registration of the assessee-firm under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The partnership deed showed discrepancies as to execution and stamping, and the assessee failed to dislodge the revenue authorities' findings on other defects such as non-division of profits and losses, erasures and cuttings in the deed, non-production of the draft deed, and non-appearance of the partners before the assessing authority despite s. The additional plea regarding a drafting mistake was not raised before the lower authorities and was not entertained.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant registration was upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.

---