9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution of the firm on the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 on November 8, 1961. From November 9, 1961, a new instrument of partnership came into existence. On September 29, 1962, the firm applied for registration under the Act in Form No. 11A. The Income-tax Officer refused registration on the ground that the case fell under section 184(7) of the Act. The Tribunal, thereafter, upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. There was a reference to the High Court. It was held by the High Court that the application was filed in September, 1962. On that date, the constitution of the firm had changed. The application for registration under the 1961 Act was for registration of the firm which was in existenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court under section 256(1) of the Act was as follows : " Was the application for registration made in Form No. 11A on 29th September, 1962, validly refused ? " The question of registration of the firm under the relevant Income-tax Act was dealt with under section 26A of the 1922 Act. Section 26 of the 1922 Act dealt with the change in the constitution of a firm. As neither the Revenue authorities nor the High Court has proceeded on any question of the constitution of the firm, it is not necessary for the present purpose to deal with that. Section 26A of the 1922 Act dealt with the procedure for registration of the firm. Under the provision, an application might be made to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of any firm constituted under an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of the business in the previous year, between the partners who were entitled to shares in such income, profits or gains or loss had to be given. The form of the renewal application was appended to rule 6. It might be noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had extended the time for registration during the transitional period after coming into operation of the Act of 1961, up to September 30, 1962. It would thus be seen that when the application was filed, it was in time and it was not necessary to fill up the two schedules, but if the application was filed for the first registration of the firm which was in existence in the previous year at a point of time when the firm was reconstituted, then the particulars of both kinds had to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sub-section (7) of section 184 of the Act. Such procedure, it seems to us, has been substantially complied with. The question which the High Court posed before it was whether the application filed on September 29, 1962, in Form No. 11A was a good application in accordance with the 1961 Act and the rules framed thereunder or whether it was a case of continuance of the registration granted under the 1922 Act within the meaning of sub-section (7) of section 184 of the Act. It is apparent from the relevant provisions of the two Acts that registration granted under the 1922 Act cannot have effect of continuing the registration for the assessment year 1962-63 where the 1961 Act would apply. For that year, an application for registration of a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
