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

1988 (11) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... il 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, there was no change in the constitution of the firm. The firm name of the head office was Jagjit Singh Jaspal Singh, whereas the name of the branch office was Jagjit Woollen Mills. Both the firms belong to the four partners and were covered by the partnership deed dated April 1, 1973. The Income-tax Officer found two defects in the application : (1) that the application should have been in Form No. 11A, and (2) that instead of giving the firm name of the head office, the firm name of the branch office was mentioned for the purpose of registration. He gave an opportunity under section 185(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), to the assessee to rectify the defects and when the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d but if not, then registration would be refused. Subsection (2) provides that where the Income-tax Officer finds some defects, opportunity is to be granted for rectifying the defects within a period of one month from the date of such intimation and if the defect is not rectified within that period, it will be open to him to reject the application. Rule 22 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribes the forms for filing the application for registration of a firm. Sub-rule (2) provides that if there is a change in the constitution of the firm or shares of the partners during the previous year before the date of the application, the application has to be made in Form No. 11 A and where no change in the constitution of the firm or shares of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xpression whereas the firm is a compendium of the persons who agree to carry on business in partnership and such persons are called partners. In this behalf, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Dulichand Laxminarayan v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 535, at page 541, deserve to be noticed. "It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the law, English as well as Indian, has, for some specific purposes, some of which are referred to above, relaxed its rigid notions and extended a limited personality to firm. Nevertheless, the general concept of partnership, firmly established in both systems of law, still is that a firm is not an entity or person in law but is merely an association of individuals and a firm name is only a collective n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... partnership to have a firm name for many purposes, it does not follow that the firm name is an, essential ingredient of the constitution of the firm and it is possible for a firm to carry on business even without assuming a firm name. It cannot, therefore, be held that there has been a change in the constitution of a firm by the mere fact that the name of the firm has been changed and the Income-tax Officer cannot refuse to renew the registration of a firm under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the name of the firm has been changed." In the present case, the facts are on firmer footing in favour of the assessee as compared to the facts of the Allahabad case. Here, the firm name of the head office was mention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und that correction was made beyond the prescribed period and the prayer for correction was not signed by the authorised representative. Once we come to the conclusion that the application for registration was in order, the question of directing the assessee to remove the defects does not arise and, consequently, the question of making the correction within time or by an authorised representative also does not arise. We are proceeding to decide this matter on the basis of the original application ignoring the application in which the defects were removed because the assessee is entitled to succeed on the basis of its original application itself. If the assessee is not to succeed on the basis of its original application, then only the other .....

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