COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE VS ALPHA MIAN & CO., LAHORE
2001 P T D 1406
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, LAHORE
versus
ALPHA MIAN & CO., LAHORE
C.T.R. No. 112 of 1993, decided on 16/01/2001.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.136‑‑‑Reference to the High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Question of fact‑‑ Registration of a firm or existence or execution of partnership deed were necessarily a question of fact.
In re: Malik & Company 1974 PTD 142; The Commissioner of Income‑tax, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Zamindara Flour Mills, Lyallpur 1970 SCMR 530 and Ratanchand Darbarilal v. C.I.T. (M.P. (1985) 155 ITR 720 ref.
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of C.I.T., Lahore. The following question of law has been framed for our consideration and reply:‑‑
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee‑firm was entitled to registration for the charge years 1968‑69, 1969‑70 and 1970‑71."
2. For the assessment years 1968‑69, 1969‑70 and 1970‑71 the respondent‑firm filed an application for renewal of registration which was refused on 29‑6‑1973. The Assessing Officer held that since registration of the firm for the immediate preceding year was not renewed/granted it did not fulfil the requirements of subsection (3) of section 26‑A. of the late Act, 1922. The learned Tribunal by relying upon a judgment of this Court in re: Malik & Company 1974 PTD 142 allowed registration holding that in the preceding year the registration for the firm could not be availed for the reasons which were not material.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revenue we are not persuaded to answer the question as framed. In re: The Commissioner of Income‑tax, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Zamindara Flour Mills Lyallpur 1970 SCMR 530, it was held by the apex Court that the existence or the execution of partnership was necessarily a question of fact. The Supreme Court of India in re: Ratanchand Darbarilal v. C.I.T. (M.P. (1985) 155 ITR 720 supported the proposition that registration of a firm was necessarily a question of fact.
4. That being so, as said above, we will decline to answer the question.
M.B.A./38/LReference declined: