COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BANAIK INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench "B", has referred the undermentioned question for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE question, as its very frame indicates, relates to registration of the firm which is the opposite party here. THE assessment year is 1972-73. THE application for registration was duly filed along with the partnership deed. THE partnership deed indicated the names of the partners as Smt. Satya Banaik, Smt. Vinod Banaik and Sardar Gurnam Singh. THE recital in the partnership deed about the second named partner, namely, Smt. Vinod Banaik was as under :

(3.) MR. Rajgarhia, appearing for the department, has laid stress on the recitation in the partnership deed relating to the capacity in which Smt. Vinod Banaik had joined the partnership. According to him, she had joined it as representing the HUF. This she could not do. In support of his argument, he has relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of V. M. N. Radha Ammal v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 225, which decision was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills [1965] 57 ITR 510.