| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 373 1956 SLD 373 = 1956 PLD 316 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1956, decided on 28th May, 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, (now High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore), dated the 7th July, 1954, in Civil Reference No. 7 of 1951).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J, M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PUNJAB,
Abdul Haq Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikharuddin Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. Fazal Din. Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Doss Muhammad Khan Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Naziruddin Attorney for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1956, decided on 28th May, 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, (now High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore), dated the 7th July, 1954, in Civil Reference No. 7 of 1951).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Muhammad Munir, C. J, M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PUNJAB,
Abdul Haq Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikharuddin Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. Fazal Din. Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Doss Muhammad Khan Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Naziruddin Attorney for
Respondent.
N.-W. F. P. AND BAHAWALPUR-Appellant
VERSUS
MESSRS MAULA DAD-MUHAMMAD SAEED OF SHEIKHUPURA--Respondent
Law: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)
Section: 26
P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Pak.) 316 Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 26-A read with Rule 4 framed under the section-Registration may not be refused on account of a false statement in application as to profits accrued or that they were divided among partners. According to section 26-A, Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), and the Rules made there under the Income-tax Officer is bound to register a firm if he is satisfied that the firm as set out in the instrument of partnership exists and that the application has been properly made. The words `properly made' in rule 4 must be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they have been used and that context shows that these words refer back to the particulars which are prescribed by rules 2 and 3, namely, that the application has been made by the persons who are required to make it ; that it has been signed by the persons who are required to sign it; and that it has been made in the prescribed form and is accompanied by the prescribed documents. If these requirements are fulfilled, then the only question that the income-tax Officer has to decide is whether a firm as set out in the instrument of partnership exists or not. If he is satisfied that the firm exists, he is bound to register the firm. The falsity of the return and of the certificate in the application for registration that the firm has earned a certain amount of profits and that that amount has been divided among the partners is irrelevant to the issue which the Income-tax Officer has to decide under Rule 4, whether or not a firm exists as stated in the instrument of partnership. Such false averments can, however, be dealt with by cancellation of registration under section 23 (4) or section 28 (1) (d), or rule 6 (b) of Rules framed under section 26-A, Income-tax, Act. Nevertheless, if there was a rule prescribing that an application for tae registration of a firm should only be made after the profits have been divided or credited and that it should state that the profits have been divided or credited, the rule would not be ultra vires and the non-compliance of r that…