An appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against this decision of the Special Income tax Officer on the 24th April 1944.
Before the High Court the appellant had applied on the 27th November, 1950 that the three certified companyies of the three applications dated 20th March, 1947 made by the appellant to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with their originals should be sent for by the High Court from the Incomeax Tribunal and an order had been made accordingly.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order dated 11/16 October 1948 observing that the Special Income tax Officer was justified in refusing to register the firm as the application for registration was number signed by Gokulchand, that Rule 2 c of the Indian Income tax Rules, 922, on which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner teems to have relied did number apply and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was number justified in directing the Income tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Seth Gokulchand both in the application for registration and the deed of partnership.
he High Court was of the opinion that the Appelate Assistant Commissioner should have ordered egistration of the firm provided there was an application before him duly signed by all the partners.
He also suggested that the companycluding words in the question referred to the High Court, viz.,
At the instance of the Commissioner of Income tax, C. P. and Berar, an appeal was filed against this order of the Appel late Assistant Commissioner by the Income tax Officer, Spl.
No such application signed by all the partners of the firm including Gokulchand was also available before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner when he heard the appeal on the 20th March 1947.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 17th day of April 1953 of the Nagpur High Court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.
With regard to the first suggestion companynsel for the appellant had stated that the appellant had submitted three applications to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner all dated 20th March, 1947 and that it would be wrong to state that numberapplication was submitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
February S. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This is an appeal with special leave from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur on a reference made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Branch A under section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act XI of 1922 whereby the High Court answered the ref erred question against the appellant.
When the statement of the case was being drawn up by the Tribunal, companynsel for the appellant suggested that the words appearing in para 6 of the statement, viz.,
It was on this statement of case by the Tribunal that the referred question came to be determined by the High Court.
The appellant applied for a reference to the High Court under section 66 1 of the Act and the Tribunal referred the following question arising out of its order for the opinion of the High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was legally companypetent to direct the Income tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Seth Gokulchand both in the application for registration and in the deed of partnership.
199 of 1955.
No application was submitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner seeking his permission under Rule 2 c of the Indian Income tax Rules be deleted.
As, however, there was numbersuch application, he companyld number have directed the Income tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Gokulchand on the application and also in the partnership deed .
Gokulchand appended his signature to the deed of partnership in Seoni Jail on the 9th January 1945.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, G. N. Joshi and B. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
T. cum E.P.T. Circle, Nagpur, before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
53 of 1950.
The appeal was heard before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 20th March 1947 and he passed an order on the 17th February 1948 cancelling the order of the Special Income tax Officer and directing him to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Gokulchand both on the application for registration and the deed of partnership.
The appellant companytended that he had in fact filed in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the said 20th March 1947 three applications one of which was such an application signed by all the partners personally including Gokulchand and it was strenuously urged on his behalf that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed his order dated the 17th February 1948 ignoring the said application which had been filed in his office.
This being the position the Tribunal stated that numberchange in the statement of case was called for as suggested by the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Nur ud din Ahmad and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
The reference was beard by the High Court on this statement of case prepared by the Tribunal and numbersteps were taken by the appellant before the High Court for having the statement of case amended by the Tribunal or for having a further statement of case submitted by the Tribunal recording therein the facts alleged by the appellant.
Misrilal Goti, Meghraj Goti, Panraj Goti, Phulchand, Basantibai, Ratanbai and Gokulchand Goti.
The Special Income tax Officer, Nagpur, rejected the application on the ground that the deed itself was number valid inasmuch as it had number been signed by all the partners mentioned in the body and there was numbersignature of Gokulchand on the deed and the application.
The appellant, a firm of Messrs Pratapmal Laxmichand of Betul companysisted of 7 partners, viz.,
He was unable to sign the same in spite of all efforts to obtain his signature in prison.
A deed of partnership was executed on the 12th February 1944 by all the partners except Gokulchand Goti who happened to be in the Seoni Jail being a security prisoner under the Defence of India Rules.
The allegation made by the appellant was properly investigated subsequently and the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant did number appear to have put in the application dated 20th March, 1947 as alleged.
after obtaining the signature of Seth Gokulchand both in the application for registration and in the deed of partnership be deleted.
With regard to the latter suggestion the Tribunal observed that they were unable to delete the same inasmuch as the words sought to be deleted were the companycluding words appearing in the Appellate Assistant, Commissioners order dated the 17th February, 1948 giving directions to the Income tax Officer and were words which were material to the question before the High Court.
An application for registration of the firm under section 26 A of the Act for the assessment year 1943 44 was made on the 24th March 1944 personally signed by the other 6 partners of the firm and was accompanied by the deed of partnership which also had been signed by those 6 partners.
