TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (2) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cidentally the last date of the accounting period. The Income-tax Officer found that the form No. 11 was filed 30th March, 72. As the application for registration was three months late, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for registration as obviously he was not satisfied about the delay in the filing of the application. The income tax Officer further found that Smt. Sulochana Devi Nathani was a partner in M/s West Bengal Mining Co. and it was in respect of this share in the above firm that the present sub-partnership was executed between the assessee and the Trust. The assessee was settlor of the trust and by this partnership she agreed to share the profits from that firm with the trust who became a 50% partner with the assessee for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not have come into existence from the 1st January, 1971 as the efforts were being made in the month of September, to admit the trust as one anna partner in the firm M/s. West Bengal Mining Co. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that only from November, 1971 the idea of sub- partnership came into existence and it was put in writing by the end of December, 1971. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that it was not possible for the trustees to enter into a partnership from an earlier date and the narration to this effect in the partnership deed was not in conformity with the sequence of events. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, came to the conclusion that the partnership could come into ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was filed. 5. The Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that there could be no partnership between an individual and the Trust. According to him a Trust was not a person and cannot enter into a partnership for sharing profits of a running business. Secondly, it was submitted that the partnership could not come into existence from 1st January, 1971 and therefore, the partnership deed should not have been executed. He also submitted that the application for registration was late by three months and such a long delay should have been explained by producing certain evidences which might show that the delay was due to reasonable cause. 6. We have considered the facts of the case and we are of the view that the finding of th....