SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J. -This reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71 and following question has been referred to us for decision by the Department under section 6(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1922: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income --tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a partnership deed giving retrospective effect to the partnership arrangement creates a valid partnership entitling it to registration under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act?"
2. The respondent which: ns a partnership firm was refused registration under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act try the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1970-71 can the ground teat the partnership deed was executed on 20-8-1969 while it purported to have come into effect from 1-8- 1969. The Income-tax Officer while refusing registration of the respondent film relied on the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mid Qudratullah 1968 PTD 411.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by the respondent reversed the decision of the income-tax Officer both on the ground that the ratio of decision in the Qudratullah's case relied by the Income-tax Officer did not apply to the facts of the present case, as well as on the ground that in the year 1965 by the Finance Act of that year which came into effect on 1st July, 1965, the registration of a partnership firm under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act became permissible even if the deed of partnership between the partners was executed before the end of the previous year. In the present case the assessment year was 1970-71 which would end on 30-6-1970. The partnership deed in question was admittedly executed on 20th August, 1969 and it recited that the partnership between the parties came into effect from 1st August, 1969. In these circumstances unless a finding was record by the Income-tax Officer that teat: partnership deed was a sham document, he could not refuse registration merely on the ground that it purported to create a partnership prior to the date of its execution. The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute before us that after introduction of the amend- -ment in section 26-A of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act of the relevant year such a course was absolutely permissible. It is, therefore, not necessary here to examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Qudratullah as otherwise we are satisfied that in view of the amended provisions of section 26-A of the Income- tax Act alone the decision of the Tribunal is unexceptionable in the circumstances and facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew our attention to the case of Commissioner of income-tax North Zone, Lahore v. Rippon Printing Press, Lahore 1973 PTD 465, decided by a Bench of the Lahore High Court in which a similar view has been taken as is expressed by us.
We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.