1984 PLP 280 (PTD)

SALEEN AKHTAR, J. ‑The applicant has filed this application under section 66(1) of the Income‑tax Act raising the following questions:‑ (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in confirming the refusal to renew the registration by the Income‑tax Officer merely on the ground that the application vas defective inasmuch as it bore signatures of more than three partners? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal against refusal to renew registration for assessment year 1957‑58 on the ground that the application was defective and the defect was not removed at the stage of appeal without any opportunity having been afforded to the applicant firm to remove the alleged defect? The learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the question; No.

2. The applicant firm was carrying on business under the mime and style of Messrs Abdul Latif Jusab from 1947. During the period from 4‑5‑1950 to 28‑7‑1956 this firm consisted of the following three partners : - Sharif s/o Haji Abdul Shakoor. Abdul Latif s/o H. A. Shakoor. Yousaf s/o Haji Muhammad. From 30th July, 1956 to 4‑7‑1959 the firm was reconstituted by intro ducing six more partners in addition to the aforestated three partners. During the past years the Income‑tax Officer had granted registration and renewal of registration to the firm. For the accounting year ending 28th July, 1956 (assessment year 1957‑58) the firm filed an application for re newal of registration under section 26(A) of the Income‑tax Act on 17‑5‑1951 This application seems to have been misplaced from the record. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year l957‑58 the Income fax Officer noticed that there was no application for renewal of registration. The applicant stated that the application was filed on 17‑5‑1957. Thereupon on the direction of the Income‑tax Officer the applicant filed duplicate copy of the application for renewal of registration. This duplicate application dated 27‑6‑1958 was signed by all the 9 persons who were partners on the date of filing of this application including three part ners who were the only partners for the accounting year ending 28‑7‑1956. This application was rejected on the ground that dupli cate application was time‑barred, and that the application was defective as it was signed by more than three partners. An appeal was filed before the learned Tribunal which was rejected on the ground that the application was defective. In this regard, the learned Tribunal while referring to its own decisions observed as follows :‑ "In view of these decisions and the admitted facts we art of the opinion that the application in this case was duly entertained by the Income -tax Officer and even considered but the defects pointed out by him could not be rebutted by the appellant. In this view of the matter this case becomes distirx4uishabla from the other cases relied upon. In our view therefore, with the defects remaining unrebutted even at this stage the action of the Income‑tax Officer is fully justified and requires no interference. Defect referred in this order relates to the fact that the application ha been signed by nine persons instead of three partners. Both the learned Tribunal and the Income‑tax Officer have taken a very narrow view of the facts placed before them. The Partnership Deed had been filed which showed that for the relevant period there were only three partners. For the previous assessment year, the registration had been granted. The change in the Constitution of the Firm was brought on the 30th July, 1956 and for the preceding year ending 28th July, 1956 (assessment year 1957‑58) applica tion for renewal of registration was filed, but as it was misplaced its duplicate was filed on 27‑6‑1958. By that time there were 9 partners in the firm including the three partners which were partners during assessment year 1957‑

58. This duplicate application was signed by all the 9 partners. It seems that the signature by the remaining persons who bad joined part nership on 30th July, 1956 was purely due to mistake, as the application watt filed on a date when they were partners. This was a technical flaw in the application as the Partnership Deed relating for the relevant assessment year was available on record and correct facts could very well be ascertain ed from it. While granting application for registration for the firm o renewal of registration, the Income‑tax Officer has mainly to determine whether the partnership is genuine or not. Once it is established that the partnership is genuine, the fact that the application has been signed by the existing partners and some persons who were not partners in the relevant year but have become partners in the subsequent years is purely due to misunderstanding on the part of such signatories. Such technical defects should not impede the course of justice. For these reasons we reply the question in the negative. M. Z M. Question answered in the negative.