1983 (5) TMI 91 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds firm's registration despite profit allocation scrutiny.

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Sri Rangavilas Ginning And Oil Mills.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had the authority to seek clarifications regarding the registration of the firm to determine its ... Dissolved Firm Issues Involved:1. Authority of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to call for clarifications regarding the registration of the firm.2. Right of the ITO to scrutinize the deed of dissolution of the earlier firm.3. Refusal of registration based on the allocation of profits not adhering to the partnership deed.4. Interpretation of 'genuine firm' and 'specified constitution' in the context of registration.5. Applicability of Section 271(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the distribution of profits.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Authority of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to Call for Clarifications Regarding the Registration of the Firm:The ITO had the authority to seek clarifications to determine whether the firm was genuine. The ITO's right to call for clarification was challenged by the assessee, but the ITO negated this objection, asserting his authority to seek every necessary clarification to ensure the firm's genuineness.2. Right of the ITO to Scrutinize the Deed of Dissolution of the Earlier Firm:The assessee contended that the ITO had no right to scrutinize the deed of dissolution of the earlier firm and that conclusions derived from it had no bearing on the genuineness of the new firm. The ITO, however, held that scrutinizing the dissolution deed was within his rights to ascertain the firm's genuineness and its constitution.3. Refusal of Registration Based on the Allocation of Profits Not Adhering to the Partnership Deed:The ITO refused registration on the grounds that the profits were not distributed according to the terms of the partnership deed. The ITO observed that a portion of the profits was transferred to a dissolution adjustment account and the remaining balance was apportioned among the partners. The ITO concluded that this was a contravention of the partnership deed terms, thereby justifying the refusal of registration.4. Interpretation of 'Genuine Firm' and 'Specified Constitution' in the Context of Registration:The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both discussed the interpretation of a 'genuine firm' and 'specified constitution.' The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted 'constitution' to mean the personnel composing the firm, supported by proviso (i) to section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referenced judicial pronouncements, including the Allahabad High Court's decision in Setha Ram Dhanvir Singh v. CIT, which stated that genuineness is interrelated to the specified constitution of the firm, including the partners and their shares in profits or losses. The Tribunal concluded that as long as the balance profits were distributed according to the partnership deed, the firm could be considered genuine.5. Applicability of Section 271(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Regarding the Distribution of Profits:Section 271(4) deals with penalties for partners if profits are distributed otherwise than in accordance with the partnership deed. The Tribunal noted that this section implies that registration could be granted even if profits were not strictly distributed as per the deed, as long as the firm was genuine. The Tribunal emphasized that minor deviations or inadvertent errors in profit distribution should not lead to the refusal of registration, and any revenue loss could be addressed through penalties under Section 271(4).Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the refusal of registration was erroneous. The firm was genuine, and the distribution of profits, despite the transfer to the dissolution account, adhered to the partnership deed. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration, dismissing the revenue's appeal.