TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner granting registration to the firm ? " The matter relates to the assessment year 1963-64, the accounting year being from Diwali 1961 to Diwali 1962 (November 9, 1961, to October 28, 1962). The assessee-firm, M/s. Khemraj Laxmichand, Raipur, was allowed registration in the past, including the assessment year 1962-63, that is, from Diwali 1960 to Diwali 1961. The application for registration for the assessment year 1963-64 was due to be filed before the end of the accounting year, i.e., on October 28, 1962. However, the application was actually filed on November 11, 1963. There was a delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Shri R. S. Agrawal being an agent of the firm, the firm must suffer the consequences for default of its agent. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sivakasi Match Exporting Co. [1964] 53 ITR 204, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer is confined to ascertaining these facts : (1) Whether the application for registration was in conformity with the rules made under the Act ? (2) Whether the firm shown in the document presented for registration was a bogus one or had no legal existence ? (3) Whether the discretion conferred on him under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was a judicial one and he could not refuse to register the firm on mere speculation, but had to base his conclusions on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the law to retain a pleader and he is betrayed by the pleader, it is manifestly unjust to visit the party with penalty. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax this reference was made. In Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953, 1954, Hidayatullah C.J., speaking for the court, said : " The law is settled that mistake of counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning delay although there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
