TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (5) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the firm for the asst. yr. 1976-77. 2. The assessee firm consisted of Sri K.S. Arthanarisamy, his wife Smt. M. Rajammal and his two major sons A. Naganathan and A. Selvakumar. They applied for registration in Form No. 11 and produced the deed of partnership executed on 28th May, 1975. The ITO posted the case on a number of occasions and inspite the case on a number of occasions and inspite of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of income. The drawings of the partners were insufficient e.g. Selvakumar had withdrawn only Rs. 780. In view of the non-compliance with statutory notices the assessment was done u/s. 144 and even otherwise on merits the partners have not proved the capital source and also the fact of the genuine entry into the partnership and hence the ITO refused to register the firm u/s. 185(5) of the IT Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the AAC failed to appreciate that it is the first year of assessment and as such, he should not have decided the genuineness of the firm without affording an opportunity to the ITO to examine this aspect with reference to the books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were not produced before him. Regarding the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the AAC, the department has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mere fact that the assessee had committed the defaults entailing a best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act would not be a sufficient ground for refusing the benefits of registration. Similarly, the other factors mentioned by the ITO, namely the source of fund for the capital was not properly explained; date on which the firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms was not given. Smt Rajam....