Find a Lawyer

Reference Case No. 8 of 1966, decided on 6th November 1967.

, S. 26‑A‑Registration of partner ships firm‑Partnership deed executed on 7‑4‑1959‑Registration cannot be allowed from 1‑4‑59 to take effect for whole of account ing year 1959‑60 but from date of execution of deed, i.e. 7‑4‑1959.

Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca v. Messrs Noor Hussain PLD 1964 SC 657 rel.

Messrs Noor Hussain v. Commissioner of Income‑tax Dacca, P L D 1964 Dacca 373 ref.

Afzalul Haque for Applicant.

A. H. Mirza for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 2nd and 6th November 1967.

‑The following question has been referred to this Court by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal, Dacca Bench, for our opinion:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the deed of partnership executed on the 7th day of April, 1959, registration claimed under section 26‑A of the Income‑tax Act for the whole of the accounting year 1959‑60 (April‑March) was rightly allowed by the Tribunal for the Tax year 1960‑61 "

The question referred to us has now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income‑tax, Dacca v. Messrs Noor Hussain (P L D 1964 S C 657). In accordance with the principle laid down in that decision, the answer must be in the negative.

In this case the assessee brought into existence a deed of partnership on 7‑4‑59, to take effect from 1‑4‑59. The assessee in due course submitted an application for registration on 23‑9‑59. The Income‑tax Officer, however, refused registration on the ground that the firm was not brought into existence by a deed executed at the commencement of the accounting year. The order was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, in accordance with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Messrs Noor Hussain v. Commis sioner of Income‑tax, Dacca (P L D 1964 Dacca 373), held that the registration should be granted for the whole of the accounting year. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held in that case that in these circumstances the registration itself could not be refused. It further held that it would not be effective for the whole of the accounting period but from the date on which the deed came into existence. In accordance with the principle laid down therein the Income‑tax Officer should have allowed registration with effect from 7‑4‑59, the date on which the deed was executed. The Tribunal therefore erred in law in allowing the registration with effect from 1‑4‑59. Since registration is to be allowed with effect from 7th April 1959 and not from 1st April. 1959 the question as framed is answered in the negative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

‑I agree.

S. Q. Reference answered in the negative.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.