JUDGMENT
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion to this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the registration on the partnership deed dated December 26, 1968 ?"
2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows ;
3. The assessee-respondent is a firm, which was constituted under the partnership deed dated December 26, 1968, and consisted of three persons, namely, Kanhaiya Lal, Smt. Kawlapati Devi and Smt. Rudrani Devi, sharing profit and loss in the ratio of 50 per cent., 25 per cent, and 25 per cent., respectively. The firm applied for registration in the assessment year 1970-71. The partnership deed was filed on January 7, 1969. The Income-tax Officer did not grant registration to the firm on the ground that the lady partners have not put their signatures on the partnership deed as also in the application for registration and on the other hand there were their thumb impressions. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of grant of registration as well as its renewal. However, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and had directed for grant of registration as also its renewal.
4. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri S. B. L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.
5. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal we find that the partnership deed as also the application contained the thumb impressions of the lady partners. The expert has also given opinion regarding the genuineness of the thumb impressions of Smt. Rudrani Devi but no definite finding was given either by the Government expert or the expert produced by the respondent-assessee regarding the thumb impression of the then partner, namely, Smt. Kawlapati Devi. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the thumb impression of Smt. Kawlapati is also genuine.
6. It is not necessary that the partnership deed must bear the signature in letters and words. Thumb impression is one of the modes of signature to identify and specify as also to bind the person putting the thumb impression on a document. It is also recognised under Section 3(56) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court also takes judicial notice of the fact that even on important documents like registration of a sale deed apart from the signature of the seller his thumb impression is also taken by the registration department to make it definite that the seller is the same person. There is no particular mode of signature prescribed under the Income-tax Act or the rules framed thereunder. Therefore putting thumb impression amounts to signing a document. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the two partners instead of signing the partnership deed had put their thumb impressions.
7. In view of the foregoing discussions we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.