Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (9) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g shown only in the case when such application along with the deed of partnership is filed within the end of the previous year in question ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in interpreting the provisions of sections 184(3), 184(4) and 184(5) and on arriving at the finding that the assessee was not entitled to get the delay condoned it having filed application in Form No. 11A on July 30, 1977, with a new deed of partnership executed on May 19, 1977, though made effective since March 3, 1977, both the dates falling beyond the end of the previous year which ended on March 31, 1977 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the delay in drawing up the document of part .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 19, 1977, and as per the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 184, the deed of partnership must be accompanied by the application in Form No. 11A as there was delay on their part in filing the said application. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that, as the assessment year 1977-78 has come to an end on March 31, 1977, and as the partnership in question has taken place on May 19, 1977, and the application in Form No. 11A is filed on July 30, 1977, the said application could not be allowed for the registration of the firm in the assessment year 1977-78. According to him, the new partnership deed ought to have come into existence prior to March 31, 1977, and only in case the partnership had taken place prior to March 31, 1977 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he heir of such partner, then there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the partnership business was continued even though the death of one of the partners had taken place. In the circumstances, there could not be any doubt regarding the genuineness or the existence of the partnership in question and this position is accepted by the Tribunal by making the following observations in paragraph 4 of its judgment : "There is no dispute about the genuineness of the firm but the dispute centres round, as pointed out earlier, the question whether the delay in filing the application in Forms Nos. 11 and 11A could be condoned on the facts of the case." Therefore, there is no dispute about the genuineness of the firm and the only que .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay." There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fide. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. If the above principles laid down by the apex court are taken into consideration, then it was i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner nor the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the application in question. The learned advocate, Mr. Bhatt, appearing for the Revenue, has placed reliance in the case of Ramamohan Motor Service v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 434 (AP) to justify the orders passed by the income-tax authorities and the same authority was relied on by the Tribunal in its judgment. But if the facts of the case before us and the facts of the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court are taken into consideration, it would be quite clear that the said case has no bearing on the facts before us. In that case, the partnership was executed in the year, 1955, an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates