TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (2) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o grounds: "(i) the stamp for the partnership deed was purchased on November 11, 1959, whereas the recital in the deed of partnership showed that it was written on October 31, 1959; and (ii) the statements of two of the partners, Sri Prayag Lal and Sri Ganesh Lal (copies of which are annexed hereto as annexures 'A-1' and 'A-2' and form part of the statement of case), indicated that they were not the real partners but were merely the dummies of the other three partners." A copy of the partnership deed in question is annexure "B" to the statement of the case. A copy of the order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 30, 1965, is annexure "E" to the statement of the case. The assessee went up in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. In my opinion, the question of law which does arise from the Tribunal's order in appeal is the following: "Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deed of partnership in question was an invalid instrument and, therefore, registration was rightly refused ?" A few more facts may be stated for determination of the reframed question. The accounting year in relation to the assessment year 1961-62 commenced on October 31, 1959, and ended on October 18, 1960. The accounting year, being the Dewali year in relation to the assessment year 1962-63, commenced on October 19, 1960, and ended on November 6, 1961. There is no dispute, rather the findings recorded by the Tribunal are to that effect, that stamps for execution of the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt on May 5, 1960. That being so, to all intents and purposes, the document was executed on March 18, 1960, and one could take the view that the partnership did not come into existence on October 31, 1959, on the basis of the obviously wrong recitals in the earlier portion of the deed. But, surely, it did come into existence when the document was executed on March 18, 1960. The Tribunal, in the eye of law, was not right and justified in holding the deed of partnership to be invalid only because of the mistake of recital of the date of execution in it. If I can hazard a surmise for the cause of this mistake, although it is not necessary to do so, it seems to me that the partners purported to execute a partnership agreement on October 31, 195....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Commissioner that the partnership is genuine. As stated above, the Income-tax Officer had held the deed to be defective and invalid because of the difference in the recital of the date of execution, the date of purchase of stamps and its actual execution. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not found the view of the Income-tax Officer even in that regard to be correct. The Tribunal found it to be correct. In my opinion, therefore, the only question of law which falls for determination by us is whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deed of partnership in question was invalid. If it was not right, then it is manifest that refusal of registration in this case was wrong. The Tribunal, in support of its view, has plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the genuineness of the partnership, and since the Tribunal had not recorded any finding in that regard a further statement of the case was called for. The difference between the facts of the case before the Madras High Court and the instant one, to my mind, is so obvious that taking recourse to the calling for a further statement of the case by us was neither necessary nor would have been justified. In the Madras case the Income-tax Officer had found the partnership not to be genuine. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had upheld his view in that regard too. The Tribunal did not go into this question at all. Even if its decision, therefore, on the first question of the alleged invalidity of the deed of partnership was erroneous, it wa....