9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of registration to a partnership firm for the assessment year 1967-68. 2. Interpretation of provisions of section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Appeal against the refusal of registration. 4. Legal justification for refusal to recognize renewal of registration. 5. Application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought relief through a writ petition to quash the part of the Income Tax Officer's order denying registration for the assessment year 1967-68. The firm contended that there had been no change in its constitution and was entitled to automatic renewal of registration under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The firm had previously been granted registration up to the assessment year 1965-66 but was assessed as an unregistered firm for 1966-67 due to a technicality, leading to no appeal. The firm's appeal for 1967-68 was initially allowed by the AAC but was overturned by the ITA Tribunal on a technical ground, prompting the writ petition. 2. The court referred to previous judgments establishing that registration granted to a firm for any assessment year continues for subsequent years if there is no change in the constitution of the firm or partners' shares, as evidenced by the partnership instrument. The court emphasized that the return and declaration should be before the assessing authority at the time of assessment. The court noted that the refusal to grant registration in the preceding year was not sufficient justification for the ITO to deny renewal of registration if there were no changes in the firm's constitution or partners' shares. 3. The petitioner was advised to approach the Commissioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, but due to financial constraints and jurisdictional limitations, the petitioner proceeded with the writ petition. The court acknowledged that the refusal to grant registration affected the firm's property rights and held that the application was not deemed to have abated under the Constitution Amendment Act, allowing the petition to proceed. 4. The court found that the ITO's refusal to recognize the renewal of the firm's registration was illegal and quashed the order. It directed that all necessary incidental and consequential reliefs be provided to the petitioner-firm, declaring the proceedings before the relevant authority as illegal and quashed. The court emphasized that there should be no costs awarded in this matter. 5. In conclusion, the court allowed the application, holding the ITO's order refusing registration as illegal and quashing the related proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the need for assessing authorities to consider the factual circumstances before denying registration to a firm.
|
