TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (9) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 and the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for decision by this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under section 263 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the share ratio as laid down in the partnership deed, the Commissioner of Income-tax took the view that the Income-tax Officer was in error in granting registration to the firm and that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The registration, therefore, was cancelled and the Income-tax Officer was directed to withdraw the consequential benefits. The Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the order of the Income-tax Officer granting registration to the assessee-firm originally was restored. In CIT v. Hari Ram Khanna's case [1979] 116 ITR 886 (All), the facts were that there were three partners, i.e., a father and his two sons. According to the partnership deed, the father was entitled to 6 annas share in, the profits of the firm and his sons were entitled to five annas share each....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e explanation for the irregularity, if any, on facts, was found believable by the Tribunal. In the present case, though there was a distribution of profits which was slightly different than as specified in the deed of partnership, that defect was rectified and the finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that it was on account of an inadvertent mistake. If an honest mista....