1984 (8) TMI 195 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Firm's Registration Despite Discrepancy in Partner's Date of Birth

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and affirmed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax's decision to allow registration of the firm under ... - Issues:- Registration of a firm under the Income Tax Act- Validity of date of birth in school certificate for registrationAnalysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna concerned the registration of a firm under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC) had directed that the status of the firm should be considered as that of a firm and registration should be allowed. The Department appealed against this decision, raising concerns about the validity of the date of birth recorded in a school certificate for one of the partners, Sri Pawan Kumar More.The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had initially rejected the firm's registration application based on the belief that Sri Pawan Kumar More did not attain majority at the time of executing the partnership deed due to discrepancies in his date of birth as per the school certificate. The firm contended that the date of birth in the school certificate was a mistake and provided evidence to support an alternate date of birth. The AAC, relying on a decision of the ITAT Jabalpur Bench, held that the age in the school certificate was not conclusive and allowed the firm's registration.The Department, in its appeal before the Tribunal, argued that the date of birth recorded in the school certificate should be considered final and conclusive for registration purposes. The authorised representative of the firm countered this argument by stating that incorrect dates of birth in school certificates are common and the ITO should have cross-examined the mother of Sri Pawan Kumar More to verify the provided date of birth. The Tribunal considered these arguments and upheld the AAC's decision to grant registration to the firm.The Tribunal found that the ITO had not adequately rebutted the evidence provided by the firm regarding the partner's date of birth. It also noted that the AAC had correctly considered the circumstances of the case and the general practice of false age reporting in schools. The Tribunal agreed that the date in the school certificate was not conclusive proof of age and upheld the decision to grant registration to the firm. Ultimately, the appeal by the Department was dismissed, affirming the AAC's order to allow registration of the firm under the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment year.