In rendering the said order, the Tribunal numbericed that another Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.1028 Hyd of 1969 70 and companynected appeals had by an earlier order dated 30.6.1972, held that a sub partnership on identical lines was number hit by section 14 of the Abkari Act.
It is thereafter, the Revenue moved the High Court in SCL Petition No.57/1978 under section 261 of the Income tax Act and having obtained a certificate to appeal to this Court vide order dated 10.3.1978 has tiled the above appeal.
1028 Hyd of 1969 70 was heard and decided by the High Court, holding that the sub partnership in the said case, is valid and entitled to registration, vide judgment in Additional Income Tax Commissioner, Hyderabad v. D.G.G. Ramakishan Co. 1 1977 TLR 244 111 ITR 93.
The assessee is the respondent in this appeal.
The High Court granted a certificate under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act to appeal to this Court, in S.C.L. Petition No.57 of 1978.
Concurring with the said view, the Tribunal further held that the business of sub partnership was number the same as that of the main partnership and all the insignia of a valid partnership are present in this case and so, it is valid and entitled to registration.
In further appeal, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.210 Hyd /1972 73 by order dated 31.12.1973, held that the firm sub partnership is valid and entitled to registration.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subpartnership is entitled to the benefits of registration under the Income tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1966 67?
By the time the said reference came up for final hearing before the High Court, the reference made by the Tribunal of an identical question in the companynected cases arising from I.T.A No.
The Income Tax Officer by his order passed under Section 185 of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 28.12.1970, held that the respondent assessee sub partnership companytravenes the provisions of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Abkari Act hereinafter referred to as the Abkari Act and so, the sub partnership should be companysidered as void and illegal.
J. Ramamurthy and Sri V. Bobde.
Registration was refused.
The short question involved in this Appeal is Whether the respondent assessee firm is entitled to registration under Income Tax Act for the year 1966 67?
Section 14 of the Act is to the following effect No lessee shall, except with the Permission of Government, any person to be his partner and such partner shall number be companypetent to act as such until he has obtained a licence to that effect from the Collector or any other companypetent officer.
PARIPOORNAN.
It is thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for the decision Of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
We heard companynsel for the Revenue Sri.
When the instant reference came up before the High Court, the earlier decision on the identical matter was numbericed and the High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee vide judgment dated 22.8.1977.
The said order was companyfirmedin appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.2.1972.
Since the respondent assessee was number represented, we requested Sri V.A. Bobde senior companynsel to assist us.
J. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.8.1977 rendered in Case Referred No.45 of 1975.
