9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961; Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 11 for registration; Opportunity of being heard before rejection of belated application; Interpretation of Section 184(4) of the Income-tax Act; Principles of natural justice; Conflict of views among different High Courts.
Analysis: The case involved National Spinning and Weaving Mills, Amritsar, filing its return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 along with Form No. 11 seeking registration of the firm. The Income-tax Officer assessed the firm as unregistered due to a delay in filing the application. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal considered the belated application for condonation of delay but found no sufficient cause shown by the assessee. However, the Tribunal, citing a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, held that the Income-tax Officer should have given an opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the application. The Tribunal referred questions to the High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 184(4) of the Income-tax Act. The section mandates filing the application for registration before the end of the previous year, allowing for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The High Court noted that the firm filed the application more than six months after the deadline, without showing sufficient cause for the delay until later. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the assessee to file the application within the specified time and show sufficient cause for any delay. The High Court considered conflicting views of various High Courts on the issue. After analyzing the provisions of the Act and general legal principles, the Court agreed with the views of the Madras, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts. It held that the duty to show sufficient cause for delay lies with the assessee, not the Income-tax Officer, in line with civil and criminal court practices. Consequently, the High Court answered the questions in favor of the Revenue, stating that the Income-tax Officer was not obliged to afford an opportunity of being heard before rejecting the belated application. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restore the matter to the Income-tax Officer was deemed incorrect.
|
