9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 after the assessee failed to file a declaration in Form No. 12 as required under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a question of law referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench. The issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee, M/s. New India Restaurant, for the assessment year 1970-71, despite the failure to file a declaration in Form No. 12 as required under section 184(7) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the grounds that the firm's genuineness was not in dispute, registration had been granted for previous and subsequent years, and the non-filing of Form No. 12 was deemed an unintentional omission. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm after providing an opportunity to file the declaration within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The relevant provisions of law, specifically Section 184 of the Act, were examined. Section 184 outlines the requirements for registration of a firm for income tax purposes. It mandates that an application for registration must be made before the end of the previous year for the assessment year in question. The provision also stipulates that registration granted to a firm for any assessment year shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year, provided certain conditions are met, including the filing of a declaration in the prescribed form and manner. The Tribunal found that for the assessment year 1970-71, the firm did not furnish the required declaration along with its return, as mandated by clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 184. The Court emphasized that unless the conditions specified in the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 184 are fulfilled, the registration granted to a firm cannot extend to subsequent assessment years. The Court also referred to Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which specifies the declaration required for continuation of registration. It was noted that the Income-tax Officer lacked the authority to extend the time for filing the declaration if it was not submitted within the prescribed period. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to direct the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee beyond the stipulated time was deemed unjustified. In conclusion, the Court held that the Tribunal's direction to grant registration to the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 was not justified. The question of law was answered in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. This detailed analysis highlights the interpretation of relevant provisions, the Tribunal's decision, and the Court's reasoning in determining the outcome of the case.
|
