COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BASARMAL RATAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Allahabad Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted the statement of the case.

(2.) THE assessee is a partnership firm. Up to the assessment year 1966-67, it was assessed in the status of a registered firm having 7 partners. During the previous year for the assessment year 1967-68, which is the assessment year in dispute, there was a change in the constitution of the firm and a fresh deed of partnership was executed. THE assessee applied for a fresh registration and filed along with the application for registration a copy of the partnership deed. THE income-tax Officer found that the deed was executed on October 25, 1965, on a stamp paper, which was purchased on November 1, 1965. In his opinion, the partnership agreement was thus void. He, therefore, refused to register the firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. THE assessee then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal where it was contended that the partnership deed was actually executed on November 1, 1965, but through a typing error, the date of execution mentioned in the deed was October 25, 1965, on which date actually the draft of the partnership agreement was prepared. It was also stated that a deed of rectification was executed on January 23, 1968, by all the partners and was filed before the Income-tax Officer on February 12, 1968. This deed of rectification was before the Income-tax Officer when he passed the order under Section 185 of the Act refusing to grant registration. It was also submitted before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the firm was a genuine one and was granted registration in the subsequent years on the basis of the same partnership deed. THEse submissions prevailed with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which held that the registration should not have been refused. THE Tribunal accordingly directed the Income-tax Officer to register the firm. THE Commissioner is aggrieved and at his instance the following question of law has been submitted for our opinion :