appeal by Revenue is directed against order of AAC granting registration to assessee firm by accepting it as genuine. AAC found that assessee firm was duly constituted for purpose of carrying on business with capital introduced by partners and had, in fact, carried on business and profits have been appropriated by partners. He also found that fact that another firm constituted by relatives of partners of assessee firm carrying on same line of business in same premises and utilising services of employees of assessee firm was not sufficient to hold that assessee firm was benami firm of other firm. In this appeal, contention of Revenue is that though each one of facts relied on by ITO to doubt genuineness of firm may by itself not be significant. cumulative effect was that this firm was under control of other firm and could not be regarded as genuine. But after going through orders of authorities below, we are unable to agree with this contention of Revenue because there is no clinching evidence to show that assessee firm was only facade of other firm. In circumstances, we accept finding of AAC that assessee firm was genuine and, therefore, it was entitled to registration. cross-objection only supports order of AAC and is not competent. In circumstances, both appeals and cross-objection are dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. CHIPA FARID MOHD. KALUJI MOTIWALA