HARISH WEAVING INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred to this Court for opinion the following question under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") :

(2.) THE assessee firm originally consisted of two partners, namely, Chhotalal and Chhaganlal with 4 minors having been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On December 28, 1971, a deed of dissolution was executed indicating that the said partnership was dissolved w.e.f. October 19, 1971. On the same day, a new partnership deed was executed showing that a new partnership between Chhaganlal and Natvarlal with 4 minors having been admitted to the benefits of the partnership had come into existence from October 28, 1971. An application for registration of the firm was made in Form No. 11 on April 25, 1972 for Samvat year 2028, i.e., for the period from October 28, 1971, to November 6, 1972. The partnership deed dated December 28, 1971, was relied upon by the firm to show that it came into existence from October 28, 1971. The ITO, however, found that, though the new firm is purported to have come into existence from October 28, 1971, Chhotalal who is said to have retired from the partnership w.e.f. October 19, 1971, had continued to operate the bank account during the period from November 18, 1971, to December 30, 1971. The ITO, therefore, held that he was not satisfied that there was a genuine firm in existence with the constitution as specified in the instrument of partnership dated December 28, 1971 and, accordingly, he refused registration to the firm in terms of S. 185(1) of the said Act.

(3.) IN any event, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Wazid Ali's case (supra) the view that no registration of the firm can be made for a portion of the financial year, as taken by the Calcutta High Court in Kejriwal's case (supra) stands impliedly overruled.