RATAN UDYOG Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash certain proceedings of the Income -tax Officer. The petitioner had also prayed for a declaration that Rule 6DD of the Income -tax Rules are void and unconstitutional, but Sri R. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, gave up this part of the prayer of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated May 1, 1971. A minor had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The petitioner had made an application under Section 184 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1973 -74. Following the decision of this court in Additional Commissioner of Income -tax v. Uttam Kumar Promod Kumar : [1974]97ITR730(All) , the Income -tax Officer, Circle -I (1), Kanpur, refused to grant registration to the firm under Section 185 of the Act on the ground that the deed of partnership had not been signed by the guardian of the minor admitted to the benefits of partnership.

(3.) THE assessment of the petitioner's income for the year 1974 -75 is pending before the same Income -tax Officer. The petitioner appears to have apprehended that the Income -tax Officer would refuse to grant registration of the firm for that assessment year also.