https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69641 Revision under section 263 was within the applicable limitation period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original registration order was passed. However, cancellation of firm registration was unjustified because an absent partner had validly authorised an attorney holder to sign tax documents and the partnership deed. Although registration applications generally required personal signatures, the statutory exception for partners absent from India applied. The Partnership Act did not require every partner to execute the deed personally, and the Powers of Attorney Act permitted delegation. The partnership deed and registration remained valid, leaving no basis to treat the assessment as prejudicial to Revenue. en-us Tue, 07 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:48:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69641 Revision under section 263 was within the applicable limitation period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original registration order was passed. However, cancellation of firm registration was unjustified because an absent partner had validly authorised an attorney holder to sign tax documents and the partnership deed. Although registration applications generally required personal signatures, the statutory exception for partners absent from India applied. The Partnership Act did not require every partner to execute the deed personally, and the Powers of Attorney Act permitted delegation. The partnership deed and registration remained valid, leaving no basis to treat the assessment as prejudicial to Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69641