Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. Pursuant to the direction of this court dated January 5, 1981, in T. C. P. Nos. 363 and 364 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following common question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") "Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax is right in law in cancelling the registration and directing the Income-tax Officer to assess the firm as an unregistered firm ?" For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee-firm, consisting of seven partners, was carrying on business in paper and other accessories and also had an ink-selling agency. The firm was registered for the assessment year 1967-68 and thereafter registration was renewed from year to year. For the assessment year 1974-75 also, the Income-tax Officer continued the registration on the basis of the assessee's application in Form No. 12 dated April 12, 1974. The total income was computed on a sum of Rs. 2, 40, 680 as against the declared income of Rs. 2, 01, 060 in the original return including an income of Rs. 39, 424 shown by the assessee in the revised return on the basis of the examination conducted by the Income-tax Officer. This sum represented a claim for deduction of commission claimed by the assessee and said to have been paid to various persons out of the commission received by it as a sole selling agent of the products of Coronation Printing Ink Manufacturing Company. The assessee finally agreed to be assessed on this sum. In a covering letter dated November 7, 1975, accompanying the revised return, the assessee stated that though payments were actually made it was not able to prove them and, therefore, they were furnishing a revised return adding back this sum. Later on, the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the registration should not have been continued by the Income-tax Officer as neither the true profits nor the book profits of the firm had been distributed amongst the partners according to the terms of the partnership deed. Later on, the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the registration should not have been continued by the Income-tax Officer as neither the true profits nor the book profits of the firm had been distributed amongst the partners according to the terms of the partnership deed. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 , the Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to treat the firm as an unregistered firm after cancelling the grant of continuation of registrationIn the assessment year 1975-76 also, the assessee added back a sum of Rs. 40, 512 representing commission payments. For this year also, the Commissioner for the same reasons cancelled the grant of registration and directed the Income-tax Officer to treat the assessee as an unregistered firm. On appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and cancelled the orders passed under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal restored the original continuation of registration granted by the Income tax Officer. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the filing of the revised return was a clear admission, that, to that extent at least there was concealment of income and this profit had not been divided amongst the partners in the books of the firm. According to learned standing counsel neither the true profits nor the book profits of the firm had been distributed amongst the partners according to the terms of the partnership deed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khanjann Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 , the order passed by the Tribunal restoring the continuation of registration is not correct. The assessee agreed for an addition only after it was pointed out by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee failed to prove that it paid commission payments as alleged. Even according to the assessee the actual commission payments could not be proved. Therefore, the distribution of profits is not in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. The assessee agreed for an addition only after it was pointed out by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee failed to prove that it paid commission payments as alleged. Even according to the assessee the actual commission payments could not be proved. Therefore, the distribution of profits is not in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee agreed to the addition in order to co-operate with the Department as the Income-tax Officer found it difficult to allow the assessee's claim. The assessee submitted that no penalty proceedings had been initiated by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the same reason that the commission which was actually paid was added back, for the purpose of the Wealth-tax of the partners, and even in those wealth-tax proceedings no action for concealment of wealth had been taken. The Supreme Court decision in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 , was distinguishable since unlike in that case, the applicant firm did not give a declaration about the division of profits. The assessee-firm had fulfilled the requirement of section 184(7) of the Act and the application Form No. 12. The Commissioner held that the question as to whether the profit had been distributed in accordance with the deed of partnership had to be examined and even if it was not done, continuation of registration could be denied. It is not correct to state that the book profits have not been divided. For all these reasons, it was submitted that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-taxThe assessee furnished the full details of the names of the persons to whom commissions were paid for the year 1974-75. At the later stage, the assessee was unable to prove its case by producing the parties. Hence, they came forward with a revised return. The covering letter to the revised return clearly indicates that the payments have actually been made, but it is only because they were unable to prove the fact of payments satisfactorily that they had furnished the revised return. In order to avoid penalty proceedings in the wealth-tax assessments the partners added back the undisbursed portion of the commission in their profit sharing ratio. In order to avoid penalty proceedings in the wealth-tax assessments the partners added back the undisbursed portion of the commission in their profit sharing ratio. Therefore, there cannot be any admission of any concealment by the assessee-firm in the assessment years under consideration. In order to complete the assessments, the assessee-firm agreed to these amounts being added for the purpose of assessment. The firm claimed that these are outgoings and have been spent away. Since they were not able to explain satisfactorily their claim, they added back this amount. Therefore, it cannot be said that the profit was not divided amongst the partners in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. The partners have divided the book profits. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the divisible book profits have not been divided. The profits of a firm for the purpose of division are entirely an internal matter and the partners have no grievance amongst themselves, that the profits of the firm have not been properly distributed. In Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 (SC), it is stated as follows: "Now the sole question for decision is whether the application made in this case complied with the requirements of paragraph 3 of rule 6. If it did not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the Income-tax Officer was within his powers in rejecting it. As seen earlier, the finding of the Tribunal is that though the profits of the firm entered in its account books had been distributed, the profits earned but not entered in the account books have not been divided or credited in the account books. From that it follows that the certificate given in the application for renewal of registration is not a true certificate and further that a substantial portion of the profits earned had not been dividedThe reason behind rule 6 was that, at the relevant time, the registered firm as such was not taxable. Only the partners of a firm could be taxed. That being so, if a portion of the profits earned by the firm was not divided amongst the partners or credited to their accounts, to that extent, the profits earned by the firm escaped assessment. Therefore, the certificate contemplated by rule 6 is not a mere formality. It has a definite purpose. That being so, if a portion of the profits earned by the firm was not divided amongst the partners or credited to their accounts, to that extent, the profits earned by the firm escaped assessment. Therefore, the certificate contemplated by rule 6 is not a mere formality. It has a definite purpose. If a portion of the profits earned by the firm was not actually divided amongst the partners or credited to their accounts, then the only course open to the Income-tax Officer was not to register that firm and to tax the partners of the firm as an association of persons. By giving a false certificate that the profits earned by the firm had been divided or credited in the manner shown in the application, the assessee-firm was trying to evade tax. Hence, we must hold that the application for renewal of registration made by the assessee did not comply with the conditions p rescribed in paragraph 3 of rule 6. Hence, the Income-tax Officer was justified to refuse to renew the registration." Ultimately, at page 182, it was held that," the apprehension of Mr. Ramachandran that our decision might be taken advantage of by the Department for refusing registration of firms whose return of income or claim for some allowance has not been accepted by the Income-tax Officer for one reason or another, appears to us to have, no basis. Herein, we are merely considering the scope of paragraph 3 of rule 6. So long as the divisible profits had been divided or had been credited to the accounts of the partners, the requirement of that provision was complied with." A plain reading of the abovesaid judgment would go to show that the Supreme Court gave a decision with reference to the rules they considered and the rules did require the division of profits. In the present case, the continuation of registration was granted by the Income-tax Officer for the two assessment years under consideration under section 184(7) of the Act. There is no change in the constitution of the firm or share of the partners as can be seen from the instrument on the basis of which registration was sought for in accordance with rule 24. Form No. 12 was filed. Form No. 12 would go to show that no declaration was required by the partners about the distribution of profits. Form No. 12 was filed. Form No. 12 would go to show that no declaration was required by the partners about the distribution of profits. In the absence of any such requirement in either section 184(7) or the rules or in Form No. 12, the decision rendered in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram's case 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 (SC), cannot be made applicable. The firm distributed the profits according to the books, wherein certain items of expenditure have been claimed. The partners have agreed that these sums are outgoings to arrive at the divisible profits. Therefore, it cannot be said that no divisible profits have been divided. The fact that the Income-tax Officer added an amount on the admission of the assessee would not amount to concealment of income. In Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 , one partner was complaining that he was not given his due share. There is no such complaint in the present case among the partners. The Commissioner pointed out that there was concealment only on the basis of the admission by the firm by filing the revised return and the partners offering the undistributed portion in their wealth-tax returns, A covering letter was filed and it was explained as to why the partners offered this sum in the wealthtax returns. According to the Commissioner, the concealed income had not been divided amongst the partners in the books of account or anywhere. If the income is concealed income, it cannot be expected to be divided in the books. The partners were not examined to find out whether they have divided or not before concluding that they have not divided the book profit. What will be the divisible profit is for the partners to decide. The question of division has to be considered in the light of the partnership books and profits. The partners may divide profits in any manner and at any time they may like. Therefore, the facts arising in this case are entirely different from the facts arising in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 (SC). The partners may divide profits in any manner and at any time they may like. Therefore, the facts arising in this case are entirely different from the facts arising in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 (83) ITR 175, 1972 AIR(SC) 61, 1971 (3) SCC 662 , 1972 (1) SCR 502 (SC). Without examining the partners or examining the persons to whom commission has been paid, concealment cannot be presumed. The addition was made by the consent of the assessee. The explanation was offered in the letter dated November 7, 1975, for the circumstances under which the assessee agreed for the addition. Form No. 12 under section 184(7) does not require any declaration from the persons that the profits were divided or credited. Hence, it cannot be said that the order of the Income-tax Officer in granting continuation of registration for the assessment years under consideration is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, action under section 263 of the Act is unwarranted. In that view of the matter, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act and restore the grant of continuation of registration by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years under considerationThe question as framed and referred to us by the Tribunal does not reflect the correct issue arising in this reference. Therefore, we reconstruct the question as follows: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer in granting continuation of registration for the assessment years under consideration after setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act ?" Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us (reconstructed by us) in both the assessment years under consideration in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.