9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in presenting application for registration for the assessment year 1963-64. Justification of upholding the order of granting registration to the firm. Analysis: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was presented with a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding a delay in filing the application for registration for the assessment year 1963-64. The firm, M/s. Khemraj Laxmichand, Raipur, had a history of being granted registration in previous years. The application for registration was due by October 28, 1962, but was filed on November 11, 1963, causing a delay of 12 months and 14 days. The explanation provided was that the partnership deed was handed over to their counsel for filing, but due to an oversight, it was not submitted on time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considering the firm's past compliance and the explanation provided, granted registration, which was challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal. The revenue contended that the firm should bear the consequences of the agent's default, questioning the timing of handing over the application to the counsel. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sivakasi Match Exporting Co., the Tribunal considered various factors: the firm's reputation, past registration history, addition of new partners, and the belief that the counsel would comply with registration requirements in time. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the reference before the High Court. The High Court referred to legal precedents emphasizing that a mistake by counsel can be considered in condoning delay, provided it was bona fide. Given the facts and circumstances, including the counsel's longstanding association with the firm, the belief of the partners, and absence of evidence of malafide intent, the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was upheld. Consequently, both questions regarding the delay in registration were answered in the affirmative, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
