1985 (5) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sistant Commissioner of Income-tax to the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1971-72 (and in the other case 1972-73) ? "pertaining to two succeeding assessment years said to arise out of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the respondentfirm. These are the subject matters of Income-tax Case No. 28 of 1977 and Income-tax Case No. 1 of 1978, respectively. The assessee-firm was constituted with effect from April 1, 1970. partnership deed in regard thereto was executed on April 6, 1970. The object of the firm was to run a liquor contract under licences obtained from the Government. Under those licences, the assessee could undertake wholesale vending as also retail ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been completed on the basis of the activities of the respondent-partnership firm which impliedly means acceptance, on the part of the Revenue, the existence of a firm as indicated in the instrument of partnership dated 6-4-1970. There is no controversy in this case that any of the requirements as laid down under section 184 were lacking in the case. On the contrary, the partnership firm for which the assessee claimed registration benefit of section 185, is evidenced by regular deed in which the individual shares of the partners are specified and further the allocation has been made in accordance with the partnership agreement. Since the application under rules was also made by the firm in time and when the genuineness of the partnershi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id not render the constitution of the firm illegal or disentitle it to registration and, in the succeeding year, renewal thereof. It had to be ascertained by the authorities, and rightly, whether, in fact, the registered firm had taken birth as envisaged under section 184 of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that it had come into existence and the Tribunal endorsed that view. The advisory jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked to correct any errors of fact or even of inferences in respect of a given set of facts. This court in CIT v. Suraj Bhan & Co. [1983] 144 ITR 943, in somewhat similar circumstances, declined such a prayer when the assessee-firm therein was additionally found to indulge in speculation business, an....