HIRANAND RAMSUKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has on the requisition of this court referred under section 66(2) the following questions for determination

(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the department was justified in law in refusing to register the firm under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act

(3.) THE form prescribed is set out in detail. In paragraph 3 of the form, it has to be certified that the profit or loss if any of the relevant period were divided or credited as shown in section B of the Schedule and that the information given in the form and the Schedule in correct. Section 3 of the Schedule, it must be remembered, requires the particulars of apportionment of the income, profits or loss of the business in the previous year between the partner who in that previous year were entitled to share in such income profits or gains. Rule 4 says that if, on receipt of the application referred to in rule 3, the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that there is or was a firm in existence, constituted as shown in the instrument of partnership, and that the application has been properly made, he shall enter in writing at the foot of the instrument or certified copy, a certificate stating that the instrument has been registered with him and it will have effect from the assessment year in question. Sub-clause (2) of rule 4 provides that, if the Income-tax Officer is not so satisfied, he shall pass an order in writing refusing to recognise the instrument of partnership or the certified copy thereof and finish a copy of such order to the applicants.