ORDER This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the department. Following question has been referred to us for our opinion ?
2. Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the department. Following question has been referred to us for our opinion ?
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in granting registration to the assessee-firm.
3. The relevant assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. As regard the assessment year 1971-72 the application for registration of the firm was rejected or, the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence, because one Smt. Vimla Devi who was shown to be one of the two partners in the firm, was held to be bogus partner. However, in the relevant assessment year with which we are concerned the Tribunal has considered the case afresh which was not available earlier and held that Smt. Vimla Devi was not bogus partner and the firm is genuine. This is a finding of fact. Hence we answer the question, referred to above in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.
3. The relevant assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. As regard the assessment year 1971-72 the application for registration of the firm was rejected or, the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence, because one Smt. Vimla Devi who was shown to be one of the two partners in the firm, was held to be bogus partner. However, in the relevant assessment year with which we are concerned the Tribunal has considered the case afresh which was not available earlier and held that Smt. Vimla Devi was not bogus partner and the firm is genuine. This is a finding of fact. Hence we answer the question, referred to above in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.