9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Change in the constitution of the firm. 3. Entitlement to the benefits of continuation of registration. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeals The court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee as not maintainable. The Tribunal had dismissed the applications for fresh registration on the ground that they were barred by time u/s 184(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The court noted that various High Courts had differing views on whether such an order was appealable. The majority view, which the court found reasonable, was that an order dismissing an application for registration on the ground of being time-barred is appealable. Therefore, the court held that the orders dismissing the assessee's applications for registration were indeed appealable. Issue 2: Change in the Constitution of the Firm The court addressed whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm during the relevant assessment years. The assessee argued that there was no change since Prakashchandra, who attained majority, elected to become a partner within six months, which was after the close of the accounting year. However, the court found that Prakashchandra elected to become a partner on 4th June 1966, within the accounting year. The court further examined the instrument of partnership and concluded that it did not foresee the eventuality of minors becoming majors and sharing losses. Therefore, the court held that there was a change in the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership. Issue 3: Entitlement to Continuation of Registration The court considered whether the assessee-firm was entitled to the benefits of continuation of registration u/s 184(7) or u/s 185(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Given the change in the shares of the partners when the minors attained majority, the court held that the assessee was not entitled to the continuation of registration for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70. Conclusion: 1. The Appellate Tribunal was not right in law in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable. 2. The Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was a change in the shares as evidenced by the instrument of partnership during the two previous years relevant for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. 3. The assessee is not entitled to the benefit of continuation of registration for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70. There will be no order as to costs.
|
