1984 (11) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee-firm. 2.1 The relevant facts in brief are that the assessment year involved is 1980-81, the previous year of which ended on 30-6-1979. The assessee filed the return of income and thereby made claims, inter alia, that the assessee-firm was entitled for continuation of registration under section 184(7) for the assessment year under consideration. The ITO did not accept the claim of the assessee and thereby held that the firm was not entitled for continuation of registration under section 184(7) for the assessment year 1980-81 in view of the fact that one of the minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership attained majority during the accounting year on 2-3-1979. The ITO observed in support of his ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the ITO was not justified in assessing the assessee as unregistered firm and, therefore, his order is to be restored and that of the AAC is to be set aside. He relies on the order of the ITO. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records before us. The contentions of the parties before us are merely repetitive as that of the assessee before the AAC and that of the ITO. Therefore, we have to see that whether the ITO is justified in assessing the firm as unregistered firm on the facts and circumstances of the case, or the AAC is justified in directing the ITO to grant continuation of registration under section 184(7) to the assessee-firm. The previous year relevant for the assessment year 1980-81 ended on 30-6-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not as partner, in the firm, therefore, the question does not arise to take the firm as unregistered firm, on the day a partner who was minor in the partnership becomes major ; but such minor fails to apply his option to become the partner or continue as partner in the partnership, in view of the fact that the period of six months is there for him to apply or use such option. In this case, the period for applying the option is up to 2-9-1979, while the previous year ended on 30-6-1979. Therefore, on the facts of the case, the firm is to be treated as registered firm and to continue as such up to 2-9-1979. In this case, the previous year relevant for the assessment year ended on 30-6-1979, therefore, the question does not arise to treat this....