TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-79 it applied to the Income-tax Officer for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in form No. 11 dated 24-1-1978. The said application was accompanied by the original and a copy of the deed of partnership of the firm. The ITO found that the signatures of Smt. T.N. Arunakumari appearing in form No. 11 dated 24-1-1978 and in the deed of partnership dated 1-4-77 differed so widely that there was absolutely no semblance between the two. He summoned Arunakumari and recorded a statement from her. She stated that the signature in the application in form No. 11 dated 24-1-1978 was put by herself. Her explanation for the difference in the signatures was that it was due to shivering of her hand. The ITO obtained the specimen signature of Arun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation form was not put by her. The Income-tax Officer has not referred the genuineness of the signature to any expert for his opinion. He has drawn his own inference from the variation in the signature of Smt. Arunakumari. Is it possible that the signature of a person may vary from one another. She herself has confirmed this variation and affirmed her signature in the application form. So long as there is no denial of the signature in the application form and further as long as there is no motive in manipulating the signature, it is to be presumed that the signature was affirmed by Smt. Arunakumari herself. Even assuming that it is possible to hold that the signature was put by some one else, still the ITO should have given an opportunity t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in directing the ITO to grant registration to the firm on the basis of the registration application filed on 28-1-1978. He ought to have found that the signature appearing in the deed of partnership and the registration application were totally different. The difference in the signatures of Smt. Arunakumari in the application in form No. 11 dated 24-1-1978 and the signatures of Arunakumari in the partnership deed dated 16-3-84 and form No. 11-A dated 28-3-84 filed for the assessment year 1984-85 and the specimen signatures obtained by the ITO on 11-11-1980 (photostat copy filed before the Tribunal) is visible to the naked eye. Where there was a patent and glaring difference the CIT(A) ought not to have insisted on the ITO's obtaining an ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnership illegal and registration cannot be refused to a partnership on that ground. Hence registration cannot be refused to the assessee firm. The CIT(A) is fully justified in directing the ITO to grant registration. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. The case of Matreja & Co. is distinguishable on the facts. In that case the firm consisted of the following partners : 1. Seth Suganchand 2. Sri Tarachand s/o. Sri Suganchand 3. Smt. Mayadevi w/o. Sri Jairamadass 4. Smt. Poonam Devi w/o. Sri Veerbhan Das The firm had applied for continuation of registration in form No. 12. In an enquiry made by the ITO, it was admitted before the ITO by Shri Tara Chand that Smt. Maya Devi was out of station and that he had signed the declarati....