TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (12) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) Shri Arun Chopra S/o Shri Atam prakash Chopra 5 per cent 300 (3) Shri Ajay Chopra, S/o Shri Atam Prakash Chopra 5 per cent 200 (4) Smt. Santosh Chopra, w/o Shri Atam Prakash Chopra 30 per cent 500 (50 Km Neelam Chopra, c/o Shri Atam Prakash Chopra 30 per cent 500 The ITO, however, refused the registration owing to the following considerations i.e., (i) All the three ladies were sharing 30 per cent each in the profits and loss whereas the male partners had 5 per cent each share only. (ii) The lady partners had not contributed substantial capital. (iii) The lady partners did not have any active participation in the conduct of business. (iv) The Partners were members of the family of Shri At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proposition that the ITO was entitled to examine whether each of the partners mentioned in the deed of partnership, was a real partner and that if inspite of summons the new partner failed to appear, the genuiness of partnership could be doubted. Next he referred to another decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in P.M. Shukla vs. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 368 (Bom) for the proposition that the fact that registration had been obtained form the sales tax authorities did not conclude the matter and that the income tax. Authorities could enquire into the genuineness of the firm. This decisions was cited by the in view of the assessee contention that the assessee firm stood registered with the Registrar of Firms. Lastly Shri Roy referred to the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal & Co. vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 10 (SC) for pointing out the requisites for registration. Lastly the referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in R.K Dhingra & Co. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 643 (Bom) for the proposition that if larger share was given to one of the partners in the management or ownership of the assets, by itself, it could not negative the existence of a partnership or disentitle it to registration. He therefore, submitted that there was no warrant or justification for any interference with the order of the ld. AAC. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. So far as the first objection of the ITO is concerned it may be noticed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Patna High Court In the case of M/s Sahabuddin Mohammed Raza was, therefore, justified. The third point relating to active participation in the conduct of business, which influenced the ITO was also not material, because it is not necessary for any or all the partners to participate in the conduct of business. The fact that the partners were members of the same family is by itself not a sufficient ground for doubting the genuineness of the firm. Therefore the fourth factor was also not rightly relied upon the ITO. So far as the difference in the name of the first partner is concerned we find that the name Smt. Nanda Devi finds mention in the partnership deed, in the statement of particulars deed in the statement of particulars dt 19th Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31st March, 1982 under s. 185 (1)(a). There, the two surviving ladies, Smt. Santosh Chopra and Km. Neelam Chopra were partners having 30 per cent and 25 per cent share, besides had 30 per cent share and genuineness of the firm was not doubted. In the case relied upon on behalf of the Revenue, namely, in the case of Brijlal Madanlal summons had been issued by the ITO to examine the new a partner. No such facts exists in the case before us. In the case of M/s Nanak Chandra Laxman Das, the matter did not relate to registration, but only to cash creditors, where it is for the assessee to establish the genuineness of the cash credits. That decision, therefore, does not help the Revenue. So far as the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in t....