9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of declaration in Form No. 12 for continuance of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the entitlement of an assessee-firm to the benefit of continuance of registration under section 184(7) for the assessment year 1970-71. The firm, engaged in business at Chikmagalur, filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for registration, signed by the continuing partners and the mother of a partner whose whereabouts were unknown. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax held the declaration invalid, leading to the assessment of the firm as an unregistered entity. The Tribunal, however, overturned this decision, emphasizing that the declaration by the continuing partners sufficed, even with the additional signature of the partner's mother. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that "persons concerned" for the declaration were the partners as of the date of application, as per rule 22 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, specifically the phrase "in accordance with sub-rule (5) of rule 22." The revenue contended that the declaration must be signed by all partners as per rule 24, without specifying partners as of the application date. However, the Tribunal reasoned that partners as of the application date were the relevant "persons concerned" for the declaration. The court noted that the partners affected by non-continuance of registration should be identified, as per the scheme of the Act, and the declaration must be made by the partners as constituted at the time of making the declaration. The court further analyzed the provisions of section 187 and section 184 of the Act, highlighting the durability of a registered firm as an assessable entity for subsequent years, subject to certain conditions. It emphasized that the partners as of the declaration date would be adversely affected by non-continuance of registration, aligning with the purpose of the declaration. The prescribed form of the declaration also supported this interpretation, as it required statements applicable only to the current partners of the firm. In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the partners as of the date of making the declaration were the "persons concerned" for the validity of the declaration in Form No. 12. The court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and awarding costs.
|
