appeal by Revenue is against order of AAC dt. 24th Feb., 1983 for asst. yr. 1980-81 and grievance is that AAC has not upheld that Smt. Mithilesh Devi is benami partner in firm and as such firm was not entitled to granting of registration. fact as observed by ITO in his order are that firm comprises of three partners each having equal shares in profits. Smt. Mithilesh Devi has contributed capital of Rs.1,100 only while other tow partners had contributed capital of Rs.12,600 and Rs.10,600. Smt. Mithilesh is wife of second son of Smt. Ramdulari, one of partners. second son was employed in Bhoomi Vikas Bank. ITO was of view that in view of Smt. Mithiliesh Devi contributing very low capital of Rs. 1,100 being lady she was neither financing partner nor could be said to be working partners. ITO was of view that she was name of Shri Harish Chand, one of partners. AAC considered all facts as observed by ITO in his order. AAC also considered arguments that all requirements for granting of registration had been complied with such as partnership deed having been filed along with request of grant or registration in form No. 11, partnership deed specified share of each individual partner and deed has been found to be valued. Further it is also argued that contribution by Smt. Mithilesh Devi was found to be her won money and that before ST authorities, registrar of firms, various bankers, Smt. Mithilesh Devi had been recognised as partner of said firm. In regard to low contribution of capital reliance was placed on Agarwal and Co. vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 10 (SC) and K.D. Kamath and Co. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 680 (SC). AAC found as fact that various conditions required for granting of registration have been fulfilled by assessee and mere fact that Smt. Mithilesh Devi has contributed as small capital, AAC was of view that ITO was not correct in treating firm as ingenuine and had directed ITO to grant registration. Before us Mr. Singh argued that fact that Smt. Mithiliesh Devi had contributed small capital cannot be over-looked. Mr. Singh further emphasised that if Smt. Mithilesh Devi is to be taken as partner, normally she would have contributed capital at least at partnership with other partners. It could, therefore, be said that she is neither financing partner, nor working partner. Mr. Singh, therefore emphasised that AAC was wrong in upholding firm as genuine one. Mr. J.K. Ranka for assessee reiterated various facts which were submitted by him before AAC along with copies of partnership deeds, copies of ST registration forms and copies of capital a/c of Smt. Mithiliesh Devi in firm. Mr. Ranka aldo drew out attention to various statements which are taken by ITO of Smt. Mithiliesh Devi. He emphasised that had lady was not aware of functions of firm, she would not have given correct answers to various questions. She had contributed low capital because that was amount that was available with her readily. mere law capital cannot be reason for treating firm as ingenue or treating lady as benami of another. There are specific requirements for granting of registration which firm has complied with. Mr. Ranka further emphasised that capital contributed by her has been accepted by Department. This all more goes to establish that firm is genuine one. We have heard rival submissions. From reading of ITO's order, it is very clear that he has gone to refuse registration merely on suspicion. in view of various facts and Department's acceptance of fact that Smt. Mithilesh Devi's capital contribution is her own, we have no hesitation in holding that firm is genuine one. In view of facts as observed by AAC in his order that all requirements regarding registration having been complied with, coupled with capital contribution of partners as well as other evidences on record, we uphold order of CIT(A) in granting registration to firm. We accordingly dismiss appeal. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KISHNANLAL HARISHCHAND