| Case ID |
26330bb0-88d5-4d1c-91b1-e27db7dafebe |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Income-tax Appeal No. 2119 of 1983-84 |
| Decision Date |
May 02, 1984 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 24, 1984 |
| Decision |
The appeal was accepted, and the registration of the appellant firm was granted for the year under review. The tribunal found that the objections raised by the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were based on erroneous considerations. The tribunal noted that all partners were present during the proceedings, and the required documents were submitted. The decision emphasized that the genuineness of a firm cannot be doubted merely because an attorney was appointed to manage the business, especially if the partners were not required to have prior experience in the business being undertaken. The tribunal concluded that the firm was validly constituted under the law. |
| Summary |
In the case of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decision dated 2nd May 1984, the tribunal dealt with the appeal of a partnership firm seeking registration under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core issue revolved around the objections raised regarding the genuineness of the firm due to the involvement of an attorney in running the business. The tribunal examined the facts, including the execution of the partnership deed, the presence of partners during hearings, and the submission of necessary documentation, which included identity cards and balance sheets. The tribunal highlighted that the mere lack of experience among partners does not invalidate a firm’s registration. It reiterated that the law does not require partners to be fully trained or experienced in the business they are undertaking. The decision referenced various precedents and legal provisions that support the registration of firms even when some partners lack prior experience. The tribunal's ruling underscored the principle that the appointment of an attorney for business management is legally permissible and does not affect the registration status of the firm if all other legal requirements are met. The appeal was thus accepted, allowing the firm to proceed with its registration. |
| Court |
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Mian Abdul Khaliq,
Sikandar Hayat Khan
|
| Lawyers |
Kh. Muhammad Hafeez,
Imtiaz Anjum A. C.
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 64,
1984 PTD 308,
(1984) 50 TAX 1
|
| Other Citations |
17 I T R 51,
(1963) 7 Taxation (Trib.) 15,
(1960) 2 Taxation 84,
C. I. T. v. Amin Match Works Dacca P L D 1964 S C 377,
1983 P T D 289,
P L D 1981 Lah. 1
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979,
Partnership Act, 1932
|
| Sections |
68,
4
|