TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (11) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Oct., 1976 when this Jose was examined by the ITO he stated that some time before 13th June, 1973 his father sent to the States the partnership deed and applications for registration and that he affixed his signatures therein. The ITO then found out that the stamp papers itself had been purchase only on 13th June, 1973 and that, therefore, the version that it was sent to Jose in the States before 13th March, 1973 is not correct but false. When his father partner was examined two days dater on 13th Oct., 1976 he stated that it was sent to States for signature only after 13th June, 1973. Then the documents were sent to the hand-writing expert who opined that the signatures were not that of Jose. So the ITO came to the conclusion that the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime has Jose denied his signature. He has throughout owned it up. It is only the ITO who questions it. Under such circumstances, motive or necessity for false signature or fabrication is highly relevant. In fact that is the crucial test to decide the issue. What is the motive for other partners to affix a false signature of this partner when this partner is ready and willing to sign it and fully co-operating with other partners? We find no motive. The last date for application for registration is only 31st March, 1974. So there was plenty of time. The other partners need not have hurried up and put his false signatures on the ground that the time for filing application is running out and that, therefore, there is no time to send these appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself or soon after. So the statement of Jose that he got the documents in States before 13th June, 1973 does not destroy the probability of this gentleman having signed the partnership deed. The case of the father is definitely acceptable. 4. The opinion evidence of handwriting expert is only a relevant piece of evidence. It is not conclusive. He was not also offered for examination with opportunity to cross examine. When this opinion evidence of this expert is considered in the background of the totality of the circumstances and possibilities and probabilities, it is only little or no evidentiary value. The possibilities and probabilities are more forceful than his opinion. 5. There was a criminal proceedings. There, the scribe of thi....