COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HAZARIMAL MILAPCHAND SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON the application filed under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') preferred following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that M/s Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana and M/s Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Co. could not in law be treated as one firm for purposes of assessment?'

(3.) THERE is no dispute between the learned counsel for the parties about the facts on record that all the four partners have contributed capital. The State sales -tax and the Central tax authorities have granted them separate registration number treating them as genuine; even separate registration under the IT Act, 1961, has been granted to the firm, Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana and Co, There cannot be two views unless a partnership firm is genuine, no registration can be granted. Subsequently the registration has been withdrawn but. in that year also the Tribunal gave a direction to grant registration of firm, Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana and Co: The registration of the firm cannot be refused or the firm cannot be treated as just 'Benami' of assessee -firm only on the ground that the partners and business thereof are common. When the books are separate, the partners have contributed capital, and books of account are not rejected in the case of Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana and Co., in these facts, we fail to understand how the firm Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana and Co. can be treated as just an extension of the assessee -firm.