TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (5) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 0.15 paise in a rupee 2. Ziauddin 0.10 paise in a rupee 3. Salahuddin 0.15 paise in a rupee 4. Alauddin 0.10 paise in a rupee 5. Mohd. Ansari 0.15 paise in a rupee 6. Km. Fatima Khatoon 0.15 paise in a rupee 7. Abu Bakar (minor) 0.10 paise in a rupee, and &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this supplementary deed was also furnished to the ITO. According to this deed, the losses were to be shared by the adult partners in the following proportion : 1. Haji Jalaluddin 0.25 paise in a rupee 2. Ziauddin 0.10 paise in a rupee 3. Salahuddin 0.15 paise in a rupee 4. Alauddin 0.10 paise in a rupee 5. Mohd. Ansari 0.25 paise in a rupee 6. Km. Fatima Khatoon  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out that the application for registration for the assessment year 1973-74 was filed before the ITO on 27-3-1973, which was accompanied only by the partnership deed dated 19-1-1973 and not by any supplementary partnership deed. His contention was that if in fact the supplementary partnership deed had been executed as claimed on 25-1-1973 itself, there was no reason why it should not have been filed on 27-3-1973 along with the application for registration for the above assessment year. He further submitted that there was no reason for not bringing this supplementary partnership deed to the notice of the ITO till 27-11-1980 if it was in existence. It was filed with him only when a show-cause notice was issued by the ITO on 16-10-1980 calling upon the assessee to show why registration already granted be not cancelled or withdrawn. He further submitted that once it was accepted that the supplementary partnership deed was not in existence during the assessment years under appeal, there was no question of either holding that the shares of the adult partners in the losses, had been stated in the partnership deed or that there was only a mistake or defect in the deed, which had been rect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eating it as an unregistered-firm by denying the benefits of section 184(7) to it." The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, was that either because the minors were treated a full-fledged partners, as was the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court or they were made liable to losses as was the case before us, it could not be held that the firm was not genuine or that it was sham or bogus firm. He contended that if it was a genuine firm, section 186(1) could not be applied even if registration may not have been correctly granted by the ITO because of some technical infirmities. 9. The counsel for the assessee next referred to a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sheonath Prasad Motilal v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 493. It was held in this case that the mere fact that the instrument of partnership may not have existed during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year for which the registration is granted is not a ground for holding that no genuine firm was in existence and, therefore, rule 6B of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 could not be applied for cancellation of registration. The above rule corresponds to section 186(1). 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able both under section 154 as well as under section 186. 12. We have given our careful thought to the entire matter. We agree with the submissions of the learned departmental representative that the genuineness of the supplementary deed of partnership dated 25-1-1973 is open to grave doubt. If this deed had, in fact, been executed and come into existence on 25-1-1973, there was no reason why it should not have been filed along with the application for registration for the assessment year 1973-74 on 27-3-1973 or at least along with the renewal of registration applications for subsequent years and the assessee would not have waited to file it before the ITO till 27-11-1980 after the receipt of show-cause notice from the ITO on 16-10-1980. It becomes clear that the assessee became conscious only after the receipt of the above show-cause notice and somehow or other managed to draft a supplementary deed with back date and filed it before the ITO on 27-11-1980. After we have held that the supplementary partnership deed was not a genuine document till 27-11-1980, it is idle to think that it could remove any defect, if at all there was one, in the partnership deed dated 19-1-1973 durin....