CIT LUDHIANA vs. M/S GIRI AGENCIES LUDHIANA
What were the facts?
This case concerns an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order, dated April 22, 1997, in I.T.A. No. 662/CHD/93, related to the assessment year 1991-92. The Assessing Officer (AO) had refused registration to the assessee firm, M/s Giri Agencies, on the grounds that it had not maintained books of account or a bank account during the relevant period, making it impossible to verify profit distribution as per the partnership deed. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [DCIT(A)] reversed this decision, holding that non-maintenance of accounts was not a valid reason for refusing registration. The partners had already been assessed for their shares from the firm.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question referred to it was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Court found that the concurrent findings of the DCIT(A) and the Tribunal were not shown to be erroneous, nor was the applicability of the judgments relied upon disputed. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that registration could not be refused solely on the ground that the firm had not kept books of account, particularly when the partners had already been assessed individually for their respective shares in the firm's income. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bhaichand Amoluk & Co. Vs. C.I.T., which stated that a finding on the existence of a firm is ordinarily a question of fact, unless it is perverse or based on a misdirection in law. The reference was disposed of accordingly.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order passed by the first appellate authorities directing the AO to allow registration to the firm? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the DCIT(A)'s reasoning, which was upheld by the Tribunal, indicates that non-maintenance of books of account is not a ground for refusing registration, especially when partners have been assessed individually for their shares. The DCIT(A) relied on Kerala High Court in V.K. Kurien & K.P. George Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat High Court in Laxmichand Hirjibhai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and Patna High Court in C.I.T. Vs. Imperial Textiles, as well as a CBDT circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the AO rightly refused registration because the assessee failed to maintain books of account and a bank account, which prevented verification of profit distribution according to the partnership deed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its order dated 22.4.1997 passed in I.T.A.No.662/CHD/93, in respect of the assessment year 1991-92. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order passed by the first appellate authorities directing the AO to allow registration to the firm? The Assessing Officer refused registration of the firm on the ground that assessee had not maintained accounts book and bank account during the relevant assessment year and therefore, it could not be verified as to whether the profit has been divided as per the partnership deed.
On appeal, the DCIT(
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 68
- Rajeshkumar Shah, Navagam, Udhana vs Income Tax Officer, AdajanITA 283/SRT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Jabar Bhuraram Chaudhary, Lunawada vs Income Tax Office Ward 1, LunawadaITA 2640/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Prafulldan Motising Gadhvi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 4(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar…ITA 2589/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sea Side Hotel Private Limited, Mumbai vs Ward 11(2)(1), MumbaiITA 7336/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S National Book Distributors vs. Assistant Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S D H Enterprise vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors.Gauhati · 12 Oct 2026
- Commissioner Of Service Tax-Ii Presently Known As Commissioner Of CGST And Cx Kolkata South vs. M/S Alfa Aluminium Private LimitedCalcutta · 12 Oct 2026
