AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE paper book of this case is said to have been burnt in the fire incident that took place in the premises of this Court on the night of 30th Jan., 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant has made available two copies of paper book to the Registry for reconstruction of the file. The said copies are taken on record. The paper book of this appeal is treated as having been reconstructed.
(2.) THIS order will dispose of two appeals, i.e. IT Appeal Nos. 162 and 163 of 2005 as identical questions are involved therein. The facts have been taken from IT Appeal No. 162 of 2005. This appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 16th Sept., 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 348/Chd/2001, relating to the asst. yr. 1993-94.
(3.) THE following substantial questions of law have been claimed for determination by this Court : "(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in observing that 'the controversy, as to whether assessee was duty bound to file certified copy of the partnership deed when there was no change in the constitution of the firm may thus, not be relevant', even though there was a change in constitution of firm w.e.f. 1st April, 1992 insofar as two new partners joined the firm in place of three outgoing partners ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee the status of firm even though the assessee failed to furnish copy of partnership deed with return of income consequent to change in constitution of firm ? (iii) Whether the firm having failed to comply with provisions of S. 184 of the IT Act, 1961 was to be assessed as an AOP in view of S. 185 of the Act ?" ;