| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2266 2005 SLD 2266 (2005) 274 ITR 236 |
Allahabad High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 203 OF 1983 AUGUST 18, 2004
R.K. AGRAWAL AND K.N. OJHA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT REFERENCE No. 203 OF 1983 AUGUST 18, 2004
R.K. AGRAWAL AND K.N. OJHA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Girish Chand Amar Nath
Law:
Section:
Section 184, read with section 139, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Firm - Position prior to 1-4-1993 - Assessment year 1979-80 - Assessee-firm which consisted of five partners, filed application for continuation of registration of firm in Form No. 12 signed by only three partners - On issuance of show-cause notice by ITO, assessee filed a revised form signed by all partners on date after one month from date of issue of notice - ITO rejected assessee's application and took its status as that of an unregistered firm - Assessee contended that fresh declaration was delayed because two partners, who retired, had signed deed after great persuasion by relatives and friends - AAC accepted said contention and allowed registration by holding that assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing revised declaration in time - Whether order of AAC was correct - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-firm which consisted of five partners, filed an application for the continuation of registration of firm under section 184(7), in Form No. 12 signed by only three partners. On issuance of the show-cause notice by the ITO, the assessee filed a revised Form No. 12 signed by all the five partners on date after one month from date of issue of notice. However, the ITO took the view that under section 185(3), the omission to sign Form No. 12 was not covered and in any case, the omission could be made good within one month of the service of the notice on the assessee, but not afterwards. Accordingly, he rejected the assessee's application and took its status as that of an unregistered firm. On appeal, the assessee contended that the fresh declaration in Form No. 12 could not be filed earlier on account of the fact that two partners, who retired had signed the deed after great persuasion by relatives and friends. The AAC accepted the said contention and allowed the registration and held that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the revised declaration in time. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the AAC. On reference : HELD Under section 184(7)(ii ), the assessing authority has been empowered to allow a firm to furnish a declaration for continuation…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492