Commissioner of Income Tax vs Union Motors

B.N. Kirpal, J.—The petitioner is seeking a direction that the Tribunal should state the case and refer to this court the following question of law :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was a genuine partnership in existence during the year 1979-80 and that registration was rightly allowable ?"

On the face of it, the question which is posed is a pure question of fact. In the instant case, a partnership deed was drawn up on March 4, 1978, whereby a new partner was inducted. Registration was not granted by the Income Tax Officer but was then subsequently granted, on appeal, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Department was dismissed. In paragraph 2 of the order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the firm which was formed was genuine. In paragraph 3, it has stated that the partnership deed had been given retrospective effect.

In the question which is framed, the decision of the Tribunal with regard to retrospectivity of the partnership deed is not challenged. The only challenge is with regard to the genuineness of the firm. This question in a pure question of fact and we see no reason to allow this petition. In any case, on a correct interpretation of the partnership deed, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it was with retrospective effect and this seems to be the order. Dismissed. No costs.