9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays in filing this application. We are satisfied with the explanation for the delay, viz., that the late sending of the application by the assessee was due to his assumption that there will not be any delay in transit. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the application. The assessee is a firm of four partners constituted under a partnership deed dated March 26, 1960. The assessee carries on several businesses including business in contracts. By an application dated March 31, 1960, the assessee-firm applied for registration for the assessment year 1960-61 under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and by another application dated June 30, 1961, it applied for renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect that the profits of the previous year would be divided or credited as shown in section "B" of the schedule. It was further contended that the term "profits" meant profits as arrived at by the firm after the completion of the contract and that, therefore, so far as the business in contracts was concerned, no profits had accrued during the assessment year 1961-62, which should have been divided amongst the partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed separate orders in the two appeals preferred by the assessee. By his order in I.T.A. No. 1047/62-63, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted registration for the assessment year 1960-61, but as regards the assessment year 1961-62, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal negatived all these contentions of the assessee. As regards the first contention, the Tribunal held that the order granting registration for the assessment year 1960-61 was an order passed under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and that, therefore, the provisions of section 184(7) of the new Act could not be invoked by the assessee. As regards the second contention, the Tribunal held that it respectfully followed the interpretation of paragraph 3 of the certificate given in the decision of the Madras High Court in Surajmalls v. Commissioner of Income-tax. As regards the third contention, the Tribunal held that the decision of the Mysore High Court in Rajulbandi Venkaiah Ramaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, relied upon by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation was dealt with by the Income-tax Officer under section 185(1)(a) of the Act. He rejected the same on the ground that the declaration made by the assessee was contrary to facts, inasmuch as it had not in fact distributed the income of the previous year. The contention of the assessee that his application for registration should have been dealt with under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder was rejected by the Tribunal. It agreed with the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that as the assessee's declaration that the income of the previous year had been distributed is an incorrect declaration, the assessee is not entitled to the registration prayed for. The principal question that arises f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 34 of the repealed Act by any person for the assessment year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, or any earlier year, the assessment of that person for that year shall be made in accordance with the procedure specified in this Act. " It may be incidentally noted that the Act came into force on April 1, 1962, and, from that date, the 1922 Act stood repealed. Therefore, the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62 had to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act and not under the 1922 Act. The registration with which we are concerned in this case relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62. Section 298(1) of the Act provides : " If any difficulty arises in giving effect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Act, 1961, for continuation of registration. To The Income-tax Officer, .............................. Re : *Assessment year 19...... 19... We, on behalf of ......................................................... (Name of firm) declare that :-- (i) our firm was granted registration for the @/assessment year 19...... 19....... vide order dated......... 19......., passed by the Income-tax Officer ..................... ; and (ii) there has been no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners since the last day of the previous year relevant to the @/assessment year 19...... 19...... up to the last date of the previous year relevant to the *assessment year 19...... 19...... **/(or to the date 19.. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
