Itta/35/1999 Of Comm.of Income Tax Visakhapatnam v. Bhanu Enterprises Kakinada

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURAND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 1999 Dt: 26-12-2011. Between: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVISAKHAPATNAM .. APPELLANT AND M/S.SRI BHANU ENTERPRISES KAKINADA .. RESPONDENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURAND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 1999 JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 22-12-1998 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’,Hyderabad in I.T.A.NO.430/Hyd/94 relevant for the assessment year1987-88. 2. The two substantial questions of law framed for consideration areas follows: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe ITAT is correct in holding that the assessee firm is entitled toget renewal of registration under Section 184 of the Income TaxAct as it was held by CIT (Appeals)?the ITAT is correct in holding that the assessee firm is entitled toget renewal of registration under Section 184 of the Income TaxAct as it was held by CIT (Appeals)? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe ITAT is correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officerhas not established or proved that assessee firm was notgenuine inspite of the fact that the Assessing Officer haspointed out certain irregularities in respect of the signature putin by a deceased partner of the firm, which clearly establishesthat the firm is not genuine?the ITAT is correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officerhas not established or proved that assessee firm was notgenuine inspite of the fact that the Assessing Officer haspointed out certain irregularities in respect of the signature putin by a deceased partner of the firm, which clearly establishesthat the firm is not genuine? 3. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was found to be a genuinefirm and was granted registration under section 184 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the latterbeing the present assessment year. The registration was on the basisof a direction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) thatif registration is granted for the year 1986-87, there is no reason fordenying registration for the year 1987-88. 4. Since registration was granted for the earlier year and that hasbeen accepted by the Revenue, there is no reason to come to abeen accepted by the Revenue, there is no reason to come to a conclusion that the assessee should not be granted registration for theyear 1987-88. 5. It is also noted by the Tribunal that for the subsequent assessmentyear 1988-89 registration has been granted to the assessee. 6. Under these circumstances, the first substantial question of lawmust be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue. 7. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned,the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is that the signatureof one of the partners was fabricated since the partner had alreadydied. The Tribunal noted that the explanation of the assessee was thatthe signature of the deceased partner was obtained before his death.The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material to showwhy the explanation given by the assessee should be rejected in thisregard. 8. In the absence of any material produced by the Assessing Officerto disbelieve the statement of the assessee, the second substantialquestion should also be answered in the affirmative, in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. 9. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above. Dt: 26-12-2011. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) tnb ( SANJAY KUMAR, J )