JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has stated the case pursuant to an order of this court dated August 5, 1991, and the following question has been referred for our answer : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on a finding that the newly constituted firm was genuine ?" 2. We have gone through the reference application. It is a very short matter which relates mostly to the facts and no question of law is involved. 3. The assessee-firm came into existence under a reconstituted deed of partnership executed on December 23, 1977, with effect from November 12, 1977. Shri Nemichand and Bhanwarlal were carrying on partnership business in the name of Punjab Motors along with three other partners. All the partners of the firm agreed to dissolve the firm from November 11, 1977. Shri Nemichand and Bhanwarlal agreed to take over the business of Punjab Motors together with its stock, liabilities and assets and they constituted the assessee-firm by taking three new partners. The firm filed application in Form No. 11 on January 28, 1980, for registration for the assessment year 1979-80, The Income-tax Officer asked to explain the delay in filing the application for registration and no explanation was given. The Income-tax Officer also found that the explanation of the new partners was not satisfactory. The Income-tax Officer observed that as the new partners were not produced, the genuineness of the firm could not be examined and also the sources of investment of the new partners could not be ascertained. The Income-tax Officer refused registration on these grounds. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the fault on the part of counsel was a valid reason for late filing of the application for registration. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that all the legal formalities for the existence of a genuine partnership had been fulfilled. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also observed that if the Income-tax Officer had suspicion about the existence of partnership he could have summoned the partners under Section 131. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the registration of the firm condoning the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that all the legal formalities for the existence of a genuine partnership had been fulfilled. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also observed that if the Income-tax Officer had suspicion about the existence of partnership he could have summoned the partners under Section 131. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the registration of the firm condoning the delay. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also affirmed the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the Revenue came before this court for calling for a reference and on that application, a reference was called for and the aforementioned question has been referred by the Tribunal for our answer. 4. We find that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal and they did not find any ground for refusing to condone the delay. No question of law arises in this case. 5. We answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.