TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (4) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; For the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75, the Revenue has filed appeals against the combined order of the AAC and the assessee has filed Cross-objection supporting the order of the AAC. For the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1977-78 the assessee has come up in appeals and for these years, the assessee also made stay applications. For the sake of convenience, we consolidate all the appeals. Cross-objections and the Stay application and dispose of them together by a combined order. In the beginning, we take-up the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross-objections of the assessee relating to the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75. The facts are that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution of the appeal. It is said that Shri Sureshchand on becoming major, elected to continue to be a partner in the firm and then it was agreed upon that the losses of the firm, if any would be shared by the remaining partners and not by him and, thus, he continued to have the same share as it was before the date of majority. Sh. Sureshchand having continued as a partner after attaining majority with the same share ratio and without the agreement to share the losses, it was contended that execution of a fresh partnership deed was not necessary and that the firm continued as such with the only difference that Sh.Sureshchand became major. On these facts the assessee contended before the AAC that there was nothing to show that the firm becam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or short, the CBDT. The instructions so issued by the CBDT clearly enjoin-upon the assessing authority to grant registration on the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is clear from the said instructions that when a minor becomes major and elects to continue to be a partner without the agreement to share the losses and if there is no change in the constitution otherwise, then as per these instructions, the registration has to be granted. It shows that the Board itself was of the view that on the facts and circumstances covered by the instructions, which are analogous to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is no ingenuine firm for the purpose of s.. 186 and the registration could not be cancelled on such facts.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shared by him and they were to be shared only by the remaining partners. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the firm has become ingenuine on one of the partners being attained majority on 3rd May, 1971. Sh Sureshchand, who became major elected to continue as partner with the same share ratio in the profits without the agreement to share the losses, and therefore, the firm continued as such. The revenue, therefore, is not right in arguing that the firm become ingenuine during the previous year ending Nov., 1972 relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74. Cancellation of registration under s. 186 is, therefore, wholly unwarranted and the AAC was right in cancelling the cancellation order of the ITO and in directing him to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that continuation of registration be granted on the basis of Form No. 12 and the old deed dt. 16th July, 1969 was not given serious thought by the authorities below. The AAC observes in para 2 of his order pertaining to the asst. yr. 1975-76 as follows: "It was contended by the learned Advocate that the Department should not have taken cognizance of the partnership deed dt. 27th Feb., 1974, because the assessee firm had filed Form No. 12 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 on 26th May, 1975."...... The AAC found in para 3 as follows: "with the filing of application for registration alongwith the partnership deed dt. 27th Feb., 1974 it was clear that a new deed of partnership had come into operation w.e.f. 27th Feb., 1974 and the old partners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of registration be granted on the basis of Form No. 12. Only in the alternative, the assessee contended that to delay in filing of Form No. 11-A and the new partnership deed be contended and the registration be granted on the basis of Form No. 11A, but the AAC was swayed by the fact that the assessee itself filed another deed dt. 27th Feb., 1974. He was of the view that it is implied in the execution of the second deed dt. 27th Feb., 1974 that the earlier deed dt. 16th July, 1969 became inoperative. This is why, he observed in Para 3 of his order pertaining to the asst. yr. 1975-76. The question of granting continuation of registration, therefore, did not arise. The AAC forgot to remember that the deed dt. 27th Feb., 1974 was simply rel....