Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Birbal Khanna and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Civil Case No. 301 of 1979
Reported in(1983)33CTR(MP)240
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentBirbal Khanna and Co.
Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh nagar tatha gram nivesh adhiniyam (23 of 1973)section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishna kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme proviso prescribing time limit held, object of amendment is to remove hardship caused to citizens and to provide time limit to consider objections and suggestion and to provide a deeming clause so that the authority would act in quite promptitude. proviso unequivocal, categorical and unambiguous and does not permit any other kind of construction but a singular one. section 50 (4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso is not retrospective. scheme already finalised will..........that mohammed ishaq, the eight partner had signed the deed of partnership in their presence and was a partner in the business. the ito did not accept this statement and refused registration of the firm. the aac confirmed the order of the ito. it appears that after the ito had disposed of this case an affidavit of mohammed ishaq dt. 11-5-1976 was produced before the ito. the tribunal relied upon the statement of seven partners and the affidavit to hold that mohammed ishaq was in fact a partner. the ld. standing counsel for the department submitted that as the affidavit of mohammed ishaq was not filed before the ito passed the order refusing to register the firm, the tribunal could not have relied upon it. the affidavit was already on record of the ito. the assessee could have produced.....
Judgment:
ORDER

By the Court - This is an application u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for directing the IT Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law set out in para 17 of the application.

2. The reference arise out of the proceedings for registration of the assessee firm for the asst. yr. 1971-72. The assessee firm consisted of eight partners. Seven were examined before the ITO. All of them said that Mohammed Ishaq, the eight partner had signed the deed of partnership in their presence and was a partner in the business. The ITO did not accept this statement and refused registration of the firm. The AAC confirmed the order of the ITO. It appears that after the ITO had disposed of this case an affidavit of Mohammed Ishaq dt. 11-5-1976 was produced before the ITO. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of seven partners and the affidavit to hold that Mohammed Ishaq was in fact a partner. The ld. standing counsel for the department submitted that as the affidavit of Mohammed Ishaq was not filed before the ITO passed the order refusing to register the firm, the Tribunal could not have relied upon it. The affidavit was already on record of the ITO. The assessee could have produced the same even before the Tribunal. We do not find that there was any illegality in relying upon the affidavit. The question whether Mohammed Ishaq was in fact a partner was a question of fact, and, therefore, the Tribunals finding must stand.

3. In our opinion, no question of law arises. The application is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 100, if certified.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //