Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The Tribunal has held that the non-disclosure of profit made by one partner to the other in sharing the same in the ratio provided for in the partnership deed would not have the effect of changing the constitution of the firm and the firm is entitled to the continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We do not find any error in that view of the Tribunal. So long as the partnership deed discloses the names of the partners and the shares of the partners are known and the profits of the business are apportioned in accordance with the shares, the firm is entitled to have its registration continued. If the apportionment of the income among the partners is according to the income noted in the books of account, and one of the partners defrauded on the other in misappropriating amounts and not entering the same in the books of account, the firm cannot be deprived of its right to be treated as a registered firm. In this case, the ground on which the Assessing Officer sought to discontinue the registration, was on the ground that at the time of search in the premises of one of the partners that partner had admitted that he had received donations and had made investment which had not been disclosed in the books of account of the firm. That may be a ground for taking action against that partner for committing breach of the applicable provisions of the Act. That, however, cannot be a ground in the absence of any proof of complicity on the part of the other partners or any other evidence to show that the profit received by one of the partners, had in fact, been shared by the other partners in a ratio different from the one set out in the deed of partnership, to hold that the firm's registration should be cancelled.The Tribunal has, in the course of its order, referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Chanderbhan Harichand and Co. 1980 (126) ITR 709, wherein a view similar to the one taken by us, was taken by that court. CIT v. Chanderbhan Harichand and Co. 1980 (126) ITR 709, wherein a view similar to the one taken by us, was taken by that court. It was observed therein that the other partners should have assented to such a distribution of secret profits in a manner different from the one prescribed in the partnership deed. We answer the question referred to us for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, namely : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of continuation of registration under section 184(7) , of the Income-tax Act ?" in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.