Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1996 (6) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for all the four years ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for non-production of all the partners, the Income-tax Officer had no means to ascertain the existence of a genuine firm and, therefore, was right in cancelling the registration allowed ? " The assessee is a firm registered under the Partnership Act. For the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Income-tax Officer passed orders under section 186(1) of the Act. He found that the firm was allowed registration earlier with eight partners as named in the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. On August 30, 1985, the Income-tax Officer visited the premi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und for cancellation of the registration and the appeals were dismissed. The assessee-firm preferred further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The contention of the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that the firm had been found to be genuine and in existence before the Income-tax Officer had allowed registration earlier vide order dated March 20, 1982. The signatures of the persons after a long time might vary. Some other submissions had also been made before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, however, found that the difference in the signature was not the ground for cancellation of registration as the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee was unable to produce the other partners befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. We have gone through the paper book. The submission of Dr. Saraf regarding the subsequent registration and also the submission of Mr. Bhuyan that the registration was refused, we do not find anything on the record. In the absence of anything on the record it will be difficult for us to hold that subsequently the firm was registered on production of the partners. Equally, it will be difficult for this court to hold that it was also rejected. Under section 186 of the Act, if where a firm has been registered, or its registration has effect under sub-section (7) of section 184 for an assessment year, the Income-tax Officer is of opinion that there was during the previous year no genuine firm in existence as registered, he may, after givin....