9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that registration could not be allowed to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1976-77. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm was not entitled to continuation of registration up to December 15, 1975, under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Registration of the Assessee-Firm for the Assessment Year 1976-77: The assessee, a partnership firm, faced a change in its constitution due to the death of one of its partners, Bhupendra Joshi, on December 16, 1975. The firm applied for fresh registration under section 184(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on December 24, 1975, without enclosing the new partnership deed, which was executed on January 7, 1976, and filed on January 14, 1976. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) refused registration, stating that no operative deed of partnership existed during the accounting year ending December 31, 1975. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision. The Tribunal also held that there was a change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Act, and the application for fresh registration had to be evidenced by an instrument of partnership. Since the new deed was executed after the accounting period ended, there was no instrument evidencing the partnership during the accounting year, and hence, the firm could not be registered. However, the High Court observed that under the Income-tax Act, 1961, an instrument of partnership is required as documentary evidence of the partnership, but it is not stated that the evidence must be contemporaneous or executed within the accounting year. The Act allows the ITO to accept applications made after the end of the accounting year if sufficient cause is shown. The High Court held that the execution of the deed within the accounting year is not mandatory, and the ITO should ascertain the genuineness of the firm and its constitution as specified in the instrument. Therefore, the High Court answered the first question in the negative, favoring the assessee, and concluded that the firm was entitled to registration for the assessment year 1976-77. 2. Continuation of Registration up to December 15, 1975: The High Court did not address this issue directly as the first question was answered in favor of the assessee. However, it was noted that under the proviso to section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the death of a partner does not automatically dissolve the firm. The firm can continue with the legal representative of the deceased partner, and the change in the constitution of the firm does not preclude the continuation of registration. The Tribunal's reliance on the fact that the assessee filed a consolidated return for the entire year and did not claim two separate assessments was not relevant to the question of registration. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration for the assessment year 1976-77, and the execution of the partnership deed after the accounting year did not invalidate the application for registration. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the assessee's appeal was allowed. The High Court also granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, recognizing the divergence in judicial opinions on this matter. Order: The High Court answered the first question in the negative and in favor of the assessee. The second question was not addressed as it became redundant. No order as to costs was made. The Revenue's oral prayer for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted, acknowledging the substantial question of law arising from the judgment.
|
