Judgment 1. The appeal has been admitted in terms of the following question: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing registration to assessee-firm whereas the assessee-firm itself had filed return in the status of URF, and this case was of fresh registration of the firm?” 2. Theassessee-firm filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1990-91 in the status of URF. During the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the assessee filed application for registration with partnership deed on 17th Dec., 1992 and requested for condonation of delay stating reasons that the deed could not be filed on 31st March, 1990 as it remained with the Authorised Representative. 3. TheAO did not accept the reasons and the application of the assessee for registration has been rejected, The CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal. .4. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal considering the facts and circumstances that there is a reasonable ground for condonation of delay and delay should be condoned and registration should be allowed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The reasons for delay has been given in para 7 of the order of the Tribunal, which reads as under: “The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has contended that the AO took the status of the assessee as URF simply on the technical ground that the requisite forms were not furnished in due time. He has contended that the learned CIT(A)’s refusal to condone the delay in furnishing of requisite forms in due time and thereby confirming the refusal of registration is not justified. He has contended that the assessee-firm came into existence on 10th June, 1988 and the assessee could not furnish requisite Forms 11/1 1A. within the relevant financial year for claim of registration due to the reason that the requisite forms kept lying with the Authorised Representative of the assessee inadvertently and that the assessee’s said Authorised Representative had also himself so submitted before the AO, He has contended that in any case the requisite forms were furnished during the course of assessment proceedings and the AO was requested to condone the delay in furnishing the same. He has also contended that the assessee is a genuine firm and came into existence through valid partnership deed and the same is also registered with the Registrar of Firms and with various other Government Departments as contractor. He has cited CIT vs. Sitaram Bhagwandas (1976) 102 ITR 560 (Pat) and Kodan Das Kishan Das vs. ITO (1980) 10 TTJ (Jp) 89. He has also contended that the provisions are directory and not mandatory. He has also contended that at the time of constitution of the firm the assessee had applied for IT clearance certificate to the ITO and at that time also partnership deed, etc. were furnished to AO. As against this the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has supported the orders of the authorities below. He has contended that the AO rightly refused to grant registration to the assessee and for this he has referred to p. 2 of the assessment order and contended that the profits were not allocated as per partnership deed. In rejoinder the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has contended that the partnership has equal share. He has contended that the shares of the partners have been computed accordingly in four equal share and for this he has referred to computation of profits as placed on p. 12 of the paper book.” 7. Thereis no dispute on the fact that power is there, for condonation of delay in case the application along with the partnership deed has not been filed along with the return. Mr. Sangeet Lodha has no dispute about the fact that the firm is a genuine firm and when the firm is genuine and reasons are there for delay, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. The appeal stands dismissed.