9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for renewal of registration under the Income-tax Act - Defects in the application leading to rejection. Analysis: The case involves an application under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding the renewal of registration of a firm for the assessment year 1944-45. The firm, consisting of four partners, had filed for renewal of registration after the death of one partner, Raghunath. The partnership agreement allowed for the deceased partner's legal representative to join the partnership without dissolution. The application for renewal was signed by Kishorilal, son of Raghunath, without any alterations made to the partnership deed reflecting this change. The Income-tax Officer rejected the registration claim due to the lack of changes in the deed and the incorrect representation of partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the case being referred to the High Court. The primary issue addressed by the court was whether the application for renewal of registration was defective and liable to be rejected. The court examined Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, which requires the application to be signed personally by all partners or their legal representatives. In this case, Kishorilal had signed as the legal representative of the deceased partner, Raghunath. The court noted that as per the partnership agreement, no alteration in the deed was necessary for the deceased partner's heir to become a partner. While there were deficiencies in the application, such as not mentioning Raghunath's death, the court concluded that these minor issues did not invalidate the application. The court also addressed the argument that the rule's provision for the legal representative should apply only in the case of a dissolved firm, not in the case of a firm where the deceased partner's heir automatically becomes a partner. The court rejected this distinction, stating that the legal representative signing on behalf of the deceased partner was appropriate in this scenario. The court emphasized that the trivial deficiencies in the application did not warrant rejection, and the application for renewal of registration was not defective. In conclusion, the court answered the question of whether the application for renewal of registration was defective in the negative, ruling that the application should not have been rejected. The application was allowed with costs, and the hearing fee was assessed. Both judges, including the Chief Justice and Justice Narasimham, concurred with this decision, and the reference was answered in the negative.
|
