TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (7) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a registered firm, since the year 1953, carrying on business in goat skin. The registration of the firm had been allowed by the Income-tax Officer under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act. But while dealing with the assessment for the assessment year 1956-57, and the two following years, the Income-tax Officer discovered certain discrepancies in the description of partners as given in the partnership deed dated April 1, 1953, and in the business activities of the firm, particularly, in regard to its overdraft account with the Central Bank of India Limited at Samastipur. He also had an information that in connection with the assessment of the business of the assessee under the Sales Tax Act, Khaliur Rahman, father of the four partn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the partnership firm was constituted with the four brothers. In December, 1953, an application was made to the Central Bank of India Limited at Samastipur on behalf of this firm for an advance by way of cash credit. That application has been printed in the paper-book at page 9 as annexure "D". In that application the name of the borrower was shown as "M. Samiur Rahman and Bros." (that was the name of the firm). But the names of the four partners shown in that application were M. Samiur Rahman, Safiur Rahman, Ataur Rahman and M. Khaliur Rahman. The last one is the name of the father. The name of the fourth brother, Ziaur Rahman, appears to have been dropped out from the application made to the bank. At the time when the Income-tax Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in regard to the inclusion of the name of the partners' father in the application made to the Central Bank of India, that would not be a proper justification for holding that the refusal to renew the registration was illegal. If there would have been no materials in support of the action taken, the position would have been different, or if there were other relevant materials and they were not considered by the Income-tax Officer or the other authorities including the Appellate Tribunal, the impugned action could have been challenged successfully. Learned counsel drew our attention to some statements in the petition by the assessee under section 66(1) before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in which reference was made to some other materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e renewal of registration, having not been signed by him, could not have elicited registration of the firm including the father as a partner thereof. Similar would be the position with the alternative finding of the Tribunal that the fourth brother was a benamidar of the father and was, in that capacity, a partner. The partnership deed will be completely at variance with this position. Therefore, the document, which was necessary to be filed for purposes of renewal of registration, was different from the constitution of the firm, as held by the Tribunal. In either view of the matter, renewal of registration could not be claimed by the assessee. Learned counsel further contended that the application made to the Central Bank of India Ltd. ....