K T MATHEW Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the original petition is with regard to exhibit P-3 order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Madras, refusing registration for the firm represented by the petitioner under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,

(2.) CLAIMING that an oral partnership was entered into before the petitioner bid in an abkari auction, the petitioner moved for registration of the firm under the aforesaid section. It was contended that there were 11 partners. The deed of partnership which was subsequently registered was also produced. The Settlement Commission found that though there are 11 partners in the partnership deed, only seven of them had contributed to the bid amount and that in the circumstances there was no justification for registration of the firm.

(3.) SECTION 184 of the Income-tax Act, as it stood during the relevant assessment year provided as follows :