9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Entitlement to registration of an assessee-firm despite failure to distribute loss among partners for assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. Detailed Analysis: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was presented with a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, regarding the entitlement of an assessee-firm to registration despite not distributing the loss among partners for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application for registration as the loss was not distributed among partners, leading to the assessee being assessed as an unregistered firm. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the assessee, granting registration. The Revenue, aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, sought reference to the High Court, resulting in the question of law being referred for the court's opinion. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in deciding an application for registration is limited to ascertaining whether the application complies with the Act and Rules and whether the firm is genuine. In this case, the Income-tax Officer did not find any non-conformity with the Act and Rules or that the firm was not genuine. The court highlighted the decision in R. C. Mitter and Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 194, which established that one essential condition for registration is the division or crediting of profits or losses among partners as per the terms of the instrument. However, the court noted that this decision was based on the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, and under the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the relevant provision regarding the distribution of profits or losses is different. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision that the failure to distribute the loss among partners does not disqualify the assessee-firm from registration. It was held that under the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the recital in the application for registration does not mandate the distribution of losses among partners for registration eligibility. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, concluding that the assessee-firm is entitled to registration despite the failure to distribute the loss among partners. The court ordered that each party shall bear their own costs in this reference.
|
