D.N. Baruah, J. — In this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax ' Act, 1961 the following question has been referred for opinion of this Court: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not accepting the claim for granting registration to the firm." 2. An application for registration in Form No. 11 together with a copy of Partnership Deed was filed on 30.3.84 before the Income Tax Officer, F Ward, District II, Guwahati. The Income tax Officer on scrutiny of the deed noticed that the partnership firm was originally constituted with three members as per Deed of Partnership dated 24.3.77, The partners were, namely, (1) Muralidhar Rajkhowa, Smti Anuradha Borooah and Shri Ranjit Bora. The new partnership was formed with effect from 1.4.83 in the same name and style. As per the said Partnership Deed dated 1.4.83 Shri Muralidhar Rajkhowa and Smti Anuradha Barooah decided and agreed to admit Smti Nirupama Barooah and Shri Pradip ; Kumar Kalita as new partners in the said partnership wef 1.4.83. Accordingly an application for registration of the said new partnership firm was filed on 30.3.84. The Income Tax Officer found that Sri Ranjit Bora was a partner in the original Partnership Deed and he retired from the partnership only on 16.8.83. Therefore by a notice dated 5.6.86 the Income Tax Officer asked the assessee to explain how the two partners could decide and induct the said two new partners, viz Smti Nirupama Barooah and Sri Pradeep Kumar Kalita in the business wef 1.4.83 without consent of third partner Sri Ranjit Bora, who was still a partner. In reply the assessee stated that in the Partnership Deed dated 1.4.83 the date of retirement of Sri Ranjit Bora was wrongly written as 16.8.83 instead of 31.3.83 and this was rectified subsequently by a Deed of Rectification dated 23.6.86 and therefore, no consent was necessary. The Income Tax Officer held that the assessee could not remove the defect from Partnership Deed inasmuch as the Rectificatioin Deed was executed and file beyond the accounting period. 3. Being aggrieved by this order dated 19.9.86 the applicant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The Income Tax Officer held that the assessee could not remove the defect from Partnership Deed inasmuch as the Rectificatioin Deed was executed and file beyond the accounting period. 3. Being aggrieved by this order dated 19.9.86 the applicant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati. The Commissioner of Income Tax also after considering the facts and circumstances was of the view that the Rectification Deed executed beyond an accounting period and therefore, it could not cure the defect in the original Partnership Deed and that defect remained as it was. The Commissioner of Income Tax accordingly held that the ITO rightly refused the registration of the firm. 4. Against that decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati. The Tribunal also was of the opinion that Income Tax Officer rightly refused registration. While passing that order, the Tribunal relied on a decision of this High Court in Singh Brothers & Co., reported in 137 ITR 63. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. KH Choudhury, appearing for the applicant submits that the Tribunal rejected the Deed of Rectification only on the ground that the rectification was made after the expiry of the accounting year and thereby confirmed the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In this connection, Mr. Choudhury has drawn our attention to section 184 and 185 of the Income Tax Act and submits that as per provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 185 of the Act if there is any defect in the application for registration this could be rectified within the time prescribed therein. In the instant case, when the defect was detected, immediately the assessee wrote to the Income Tax Officer stating about the typographical mistake and executed documents to show that there had been some mistakes mentioning the date as 16.8.83 instead of 31.3.83. If that is rectified within the time by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to registration. 6. Dr. AK Saraf, learned special counsel for the Revenue on the other hand submits that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to registration in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in M/s Singh Brothers and Company vs. CIT, NER, Assam, reported in 137ITR 63. He has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in M/s Singh Brothers and Company vs. CIT, NER, Assam, reported in 137ITR 63. This decision was relied by the CIT as well as by the Tribunal. In the said decision partnership was made in which a minor was taken as full partner. As per provisions of law a minor could not be taken in the partnership firm as full partner, therefore, the deed was void ab-initio. This Court in the said decision held that subsequent rectification beyond the accounting year could not be allowed and the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of refusal of registration for the assessment year. But the present case is somewhat different so far the facts are concerned. Here, the deed cannot be said to be void if the mistake is corrected and the correction is accepted by the authority. Therefore, in our opinion it was not proper for the Tribunal to reject the prayer for registration of the firm without first considering as to whether there was genuine mistake and whether the explanation given by the assessee in respect of the said mistake was acceptable or not. If the Tribunal finds on enquiry that the mistake was genuine and the explanation given by the assessee is acceptable the Tribunal should direct the Income Tax Officer to grant the prayer for registration. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove.