Judgment Nazir Ahmad, J. 1. A consolidated statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench "B", Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), raising the following common question of law for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 u/s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the deed of partnership is an invalid document and hence registration under Sec.185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be granted ?" 2. The facts as found from the statement of the case in the various orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax may be briefly stated. The assessee was a firm comprising of four partners. The Income-tax Officer refused registration to the assessee-firm, vide order passed in annexure A for the assessment year 1967-68, annexure A-1 for the assessment year 1968-69 arid annexure A-2 for the assessment year 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer has pointed out in annexure A that the partnership has been constituted under a deed of partnership executed on September 10, 1966. From the scrutiny of the materials on record, he found that one of the partners entering into an agreement was born on September 27, 1951, as per the certificate filed by the headmaster, Marwari Pathsala, Katihar, where the said partner, namely, Sajjan Kumar Agarwala, son of Krishanlal Agarwala, was a student. The assessee contended before the Income-tax Officer that he was actually born on June 27, 1947. In support of this, his father filed an affidavit. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee contended before the Income-tax Officer that no sooner he came to know of the mistake, a petition was filed before the headmaster for correction. The Income-tax Officer took the view that when the matter for registration came up before the Income-tax Officer, the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala arose from deep slumber and started making hectic efforts to influence the income-tax proceedings and the affidavit and all other supporting evidence were manipulated. The Income-tax Officer took the view that when the matter for registration came up before the Income-tax Officer, the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala arose from deep slumber and started making hectic efforts to influence the income-tax proceedings and the affidavit and all other supporting evidence were manipulated. The Income-tax Officer took the view that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was a minor at the time of the execution of the deed of partnership, and so, he held that the deed of partnership was void and on that basis, he refused registration to the firm for the assessment year 1967-68. He followed the order for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The orders for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70 were passed under Sec.185 of the Act and in the assessment year 1968-69, the firm was treated as unregistered firm but there is no discussion as to why the assessee was treated as unregistered firm for the assessment year 1968-69. However, from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in annexure B, it appears that in the assessment year 1968-69, one of the objections was that the status has been wrongly taken as unregistered firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that as the firm had been allowed registration in the earlier year and the declaration under Sec.184(7) of the Act was enclosed with the return in this year, the firm should be treated as a registered firm. 3. As regards the appeals against the orders under Sec.185 of the Act regarding the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeals by a separate consolidated order dated February 7, 1973. An attested copy of the application for admission into Marwari Patasala, Katihar, on January 4, 1962, was shown to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner where Sheo Bhagwan Agarwala had signed as guardian of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala. It was argued before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala, namely, Krishanlal Agarwala, did not accompany his son at that time and Krishanlal Agarwala filed an affidavit that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on June 27, 1947. A copy of the horoscope attested by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Purnea, was also filed before the Income-tax Officer showing the date of birth to be Asarh Sudi 1, Sambat 2004 corresponding to June 27, 1947. A copy of the horoscope attested by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Purnea, was also filed before the Income-tax Officer showing the date of birth to be Asarh Sudi 1, Sambat 2004 corresponding to June 27, 1947. An affidavit was filed by the family priest, Prabhudayal Sharma, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in which it was stated that the horoscope was prepared by him and that the date of birth was June 27, 1947. Prabhudayal Sharma appeared before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Darbhanga and gave in writing about the correctness of the facts stated by him in the affidavit about the date of birth of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner believed the horoscope and he accepted the date of birth as June 27, 1947. He, therefore, held that the deed of partnership was valid and acceptable. He, therefore, directed the Income-tax Officer to allow registration to the firm for the two years in question. The two orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are annexures B and B-1 forming part of the statement of the case. 4. The Department appealed before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years and the Tribunal passed a consolidated order, vide annexure C. The Tribunal pointed out that according to the affidavit of the father, the date of birth of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was June 27, 1946, while according to the family priest, the date of birth was June 27, 1947. It appears from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala stated in the affidavit that the date of birth was June 27, 1947. Copy of the affidavit of Krishanlal Agarwala is to be found at page 19 of the brief and it shows that his affidavit showed that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on June 27, 1947. To this extent, it has to be held that the Tribunal had some misunderstanding and so it mentioned the date as June 27, 1946, on the basis of the affidavit of the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala. But it has to be held that the date is June 27, 1947, as mentioned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. To this extent, it has to be held that the Tribunal had some misunderstanding and so it mentioned the date as June 27, 1946, on the basis of the affidavit of the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala. But it has to be held that the date is June 27, 1947, as mentioned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal did not believe the horoscope and the affidavit of the father of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala and the Tribunal believed the certificate granted by the headmaster of Marwari Patasala, Katihar, that the date of birth of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was September 27, 1951, when he was taken to the school in January, 1962. The Tribunal also pointed out that the fact that the father had not accompanied the son at the time of admission into the school could not alter the position substantially. The Tribunal has discussed the other reasons for believing the date of birth of Sajjan Kumar Agarwala as September 27, 1951. The Tribunal, in view of the discussions made in the order, held that the Department was justified in refusing to allow registration and treating the firm as unregistered firm. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and allowed the case of the Department. 5. It appears that when an application was filed under Sec.256(1) of the Act before the Tribunal, the assessee raised various questions. Questions Nos. (1) and (2) were to the following effect : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed an error of record with respect to the date of birth given in the affidavit of Krishanlal Agarwala to be June 27, 1946, when the actual date mentioned therein is June 27, 1947, which has vitiated its finding that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was a minor.? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the age of a person should be determined from the entry in the school register or entry in the horoscope prepared at the time of the birth of the child?" 6. The Tribunal refused to refer these two questions and has pointed out in paragraph 3 of the statement of the case that the first two questions as framed by the assessee are not questions of law and are questions of fact and only the third question was a question of law. The Tribunal refused to refer these two questions and has pointed out in paragraph 3 of the statement of the case that the first two questions as framed by the assessee are not questions of law and are questions of fact and only the third question was a question of law. The Tribunal accordingly referred only the third question as mentioned above. 7. It cannot be doubted that the finding of the Tribunal whether Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on June 27, 1947, as mentioned in the horoscope or on September 27, 1951, as mentioned in the school register, is a finding of fact. It appears that in this court for the first time, the school leaving certificate from Bajrang Patasala, Katihar, along with the medical certificate of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Katihar, was filed, as will be found at pages 22 and 21 of the brief, respectively. However, these two documents were never referred to either by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on these documents which have been filed for the first time before this court. 8. Once it is accepted that the finding of the Tribunal that one of the paitners, Sajjan Kumar Agarwala, was born on September 27, 1951, is a finding of fact, then it has to be held that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala, one of the partners, was a minor on the day when the deed of partnership was executed on September 10, 1966. 9. It has been held in the case of CIT V/s. Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. [1961] 41 ITR 528, by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the partnership deed in which the minor was admitted as a full partner was not valid and could not be registered under Sec.26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This decision will be applicable under the Act as well. It is not disputed that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was admitted as a partner and he was to bear profits and losses and so he was a full-fledged partner. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the deed of partnership executed on September 10, 1966, was an invalid document as Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was a minor at that time. Mr. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the deed of partnership executed on September 10, 1966, was an invalid document as Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was a minor at that time. Mr. K.N. Jain has submitted that the question referred to the Tribunal includes the question of perversity of the finding of the Tribunal. It is difficult to accept this contention when questions Nos. (1) and (2) were specifically refused by the Tribunal for reference to this court on the ground that those questions were findings of fact. Those questions cannot be raised now by the assertion that this question is covered by the question referred by the Tribunal. 10. This court has to decide the question, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as found by the Tribunal, The Tribunal found as a fact that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on September 21, 1951, and that he was a minor when the deed of partnership was executed on September 10, 1966. 11. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia has relied on the case of CIT V/s. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 17, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the High Court is not a court of appeal in a reference under Sec. 66(1) of the Act and it is not open to the High Court in such a reference to embark upon a reappraisal of the evidence and to arrive at findings of fact contrary to those of the Appellate Tribunal and that while hearing the reference, the High Court ought to confine itself to the facts as found by the Appellate Tribunal and to answer the question of law in the context of those facts. It has also been held that the finding of fact will be defective in law if there is no evidence to support it or the finding is perverse, but it is not open to the assessee to challenge such a finding of fact unless he has applied for a reference of the specific question. 12. Mr. It has also been held that the finding of fact will be defective in law if there is no evidence to support it or the finding is perverse, but it is not open to the assessee to challenge such a finding of fact unless he has applied for a reference of the specific question. 12. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. V/s. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 547, where it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when the question referred to the High Court speaks of "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case", it means on the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal and not facts and circumstances that may be found by the High Court on a reappraisal of the evidence and that in the absence of a question whether the findings were vitiated for any reason being before the High Court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind or question the statement of facts made by the Tribunal. 13. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be doubted that this court cannot reappraise the evidence when the Tribunal has already found as a fact that Sajjan Kumar Agarwala was born on September 27, 1951, and he was a minor when the deed of partnership was executed on September 10, 1966. 14. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that the deed of partnership is an invalid document and hence registration under Sec.185 cannot be granted. The question is thus answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, the parties would bear their own costs. Lot a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of Sec.260 of the Act. Uday Sinha, J. 15 I agree.