9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the assessee is entitled to be registered under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1963-64. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay pertained to the registration of a partnership firm under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1963-64. The case involved the assessee, a partnership firm, which failed to file a return within the specified time despite being served a notice under section 139(2) of the Act. Consequently, an ex parte assessment order was made under section 144 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer refused to register the firm for the assessment year 1963-64 due to the ex parte assessment. The assessee challenged this decision, leading to appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the declaration required under section 184(7) did not necessarily have to be filed before the date of assessment, but could be filed with the return of income. It also downplayed the significance of delay in submission of the declaration. The Tribunal directed the registration to be allowed for the year under appeal and ordered the assessment and notice of demand to be amended accordingly. However, the revenue raised a question challenging the Tribunal's decision. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 184(7) and emphasized that the declaration must be filed before the expiry of the time allowed under section 139(1) or (2) of the Act, or before the assessment is made. In this case, the declaration was not filed within the specified time limits. The Court highlighted that failure to meet the conditions specified in the proviso to section 184(7) would result in the cessation of registration granted for the earlier year. The Court rejected the argument of equitable treatment put forth by the assessee's representative, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory obligations. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Tribunal's view contradicted the plain terms of the proviso and ruled in favor of the revenue, answering the question referred in the negative. The Court did not award costs in this case due to the circumstances.
|
