Honble SINGH, J. — This is an application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax,Jaipur u/s.256(2) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)for directing the Tribunal to refer the following question to this court for decision: — "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee firm was entitled to registration under the I.T.Act,1961." (2). The briefly stated facts giving rise to this application are as under: — (3). The assessee, M/s. Rajesh Corporation,had applied for registration in Form No.ll. It was stated that there were three partners in the firm, which came into existence with effect from Ist February,1979. The accounting year of the firm ended on 30.6.1979. The Income Tax Officer, however, held that the partnership was not genuine and the two lady partners Smt.Bhanwar Devi and Smt. Vimla Patni are not partners, but are benamidars of the male partner, Shri Sirehmal Chopra. He further held that the execution of the instrument of partnership was only a make belief document. He,therefore,refused the registration of the firm and the assessment has been made in the status of an unregistered firm. The Income Tax Officer had found that Shri Sirehmal Chopra was doing the business of precious stones and at the time of constitution of the firm on 1.2.1979 he brought in some precious stones valued at Rs.40,990/- as his capital in the firm. Shri Sirehmal Chopra was the son of Smt.Bhanwar Devi and brother of Smt.Vimla Patni,who joined as partners of the firm. The Income Tax Officer found that the two lady partners had not brought in any capital except for a small amount of Rs.l,000/-brought in by Smt.Bhanwar Devi. He also held that Smt.Bhanwar Devi had no experience or skill in this business. She was examined by the ITO and from her statement he inferred that she did not know much about the business and about the profit received by her. She had admitted that Shri Sirehmal Chopra was carrying on her business and sometimes she was only signing the cheques. It was found by the ITO that the deposit made in the year relevant for the assessment year i.e.1981-82 was only Rs.5,800/- and the partner was shown to have earned a profit of Rs.16,091/-as a result of the business of the firm. It was found by the ITO that the deposit made in the year relevant for the assessment year i.e.1981-82 was only Rs.5,800/- and the partner was shown to have earned a profit of Rs.16,091/-as a result of the business of the firm. From the absence of withdrawals he inferred that the money was being fully used by Shri Sirehmal Chopra. As regards Smt.Vimla Patni also the Income Tax Officer opined that she had no experience of carrying on business and in her account also there was no withdrawal except for the payment of insurance and income-tax. Thus,according to the Income-Tax Officer, no part of profit has gone to the ladies and it has all remained under the control of the male partner Shri Sirehmal Chopra. It was also noted by the Income-Tax Officer that the male partner had a share of 40% whereas the two ladies have been given a share of 35% and 25% respectively which was quite out of proporation considering that they had not made investment. From the facts stated above the Income-Tax Officer inferred that the partnership was an attempt to divert the income and was a result of collussion between the persons concerned, thus holding the two ladies to be benamidars of the male partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-Tax Officer. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The members of the Tribunal differed as there was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member. The Judicial Member held that the registration could not be granted to the assessee-firm whereas the Accountant Member held that the firm was genuine and the registration could not be refused. Since, there was a difference of opinion between the members, the reference was made to the President under Sec.254(5) raising the following question: — "Whether on the facts and law of the case,the authorities below are justified in non-granting of registration to the firm on the ground that the firm is non-genuine and the partnership is a sham on account of the lady partners,the benamidar of male partner, Shri Sirehmal Chopra." (4). The Vice-President agreed with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member to the effect that the material brought on record by the Revenue Authorities is not sufficient to hold that the ladies are the benamidars of the male partners and the matter was sent back to the Bench for passing an order in accordance with the decision of the majority. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Income Tax filed an application under section 256 (1) of the Act fro referrring the question stated above, but the said application was rejected by the Tribunal. Thereupon, the petitioner has come to this Court in the instant application. (5). We have heard Mr.G.S.Bapna, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income Tax and Mr.J.K.Rana, learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1) and the question raised by the Department is a question of law which does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and as such the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and to refer the question mentioned in the application filed by the Revenue. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Doshi Vastralaya Vs.Commissioner of Income-tax (1). In the aforesaid case the profit had not been distributed between the two partners in view of the partnership deed, but the facts of the present case are entirely distinguishable from the aforesaid case and in our opinion it does not support the contention of .the learned counsel for the Revenue. The other case on which he relied is the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court: Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kuldip Industrial Corporation,(2). A perusal of the aforesaid case indicates that the question whether the firm was genuine or not was an ancillary question which was not direcdy in issue and morever, the facts of the present case are also entirely different from the aforesaid case. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the aforesaid two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue are entirely distinguishable and do not apply on the facts of the present case.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court: Ratan Chand Darbari Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (3). Commissioner of Income Tax, (3). For the purpose of appreciation of the controversy involved in the present case we think it proper to refer the brief facts of the case of Ratan Chand Darbari Lal (supra): — (6). One murlidhar had two sons, Ratanchand and Darbarilal. Ratanchand had two sons, Jay kumar and Abhay kumar, while Darbarilal had one son Dhanyakumar. Dhanyakumar, had four sons namely, Keshavkumar, Prasannakumar, Sunilkumar and Sudhirkumar. Branches of Ratan Chand and Darbari Lal had long before separated. On March 1,1943, a firm by name Ratanchand Darbarilal was constituted at Katni with Dhanyakumar and Jaykumar as its partners and these two represented their respective families. The firm carried on business in textile goods and in due course acquired substantial properties out of contributions made by the two Hindu undivided families. In 1950, a separate retail shop by name Premier Cloth Stores was opened at Katni by the firm. Similarly, in 1953-54,a branch was opened at Satna for handling cloth business. On November 1,1956, under a partnership deed, the Satna business was taken over by a firm consisting of three partners, namely, Dhanyakumar, Jaykumar and Abhaykumar, and the partnership was deemed to have begun from September 9,1956. Prasan-nakumar was admitted to the benefits of the partnerships as he was then a minor and the firms business at Satna was run in the name of Savai Singhai Ratanchand Darbarilal. On April 1,1957, under a separate deed, the business at Katni, both the main as also the branch, were taken over by a firm of four partners,viz.,Dhanyakumar, Jaykumar, Abhaykumar and Keshavkumar. In the partnership deeds of Satna and Katni, there was no reference to the business at the other place. (7). Separate applications for registration of the two firms in the assessment year 1958-59 were made. The ITO rejected both. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The refusal by the ITO was upheld in appeal. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal and contended that the firm at Satna was genuine and the Satna business was totally separate from the business run at Katni, from before; "There was no need in law for a partial partition of the family before some of the members of the family constituted themselves into a partnership firm. The Tribunal held that there was no sustainable objection against the claim for registration." (8). The Tribunal held that there was no sustainable objection against the claim for registration." (8). On an application made by the Revenue the Tribunal referred the following question only to the High Court: — "Whether, on the facts and in the.circumstances of the case, M/s. Ratanchand Darbarilal, Satna, was entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1958-59 ?" (9). However, the Commissioner of Income-tax applied to the High Court for directing the Tribunal to refer three further questions which are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. The High Court entered into the facts of the case and set aside the judgment of the Tribunal holding that the firm was entitled for registration. In appeal filed by the Assessee before the Apex Court the Apex Court reversed the order passed by the High Court and restored the order of the Tribunal. The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ratanchand Darbarilas case was that the question whether a firm is genuine or not is a pure question of fact and not a question of law. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Apex Court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by either parties and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ratanchand Darbarilal (supra) and we are of the opinion that the question proposed by the Revenue is a pure question of fact and not a question of law. (10). For the reasons stated above, the application filed by the Revenue under sec. 256(2) is rejected. The parties shall bear their own costs.