1974 (7) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding registration of a firm.
2. Validity of a declaration filed under section 184(7) without accompanying the return of income.
3. Jurisdiction of Appellate Assistant Commissioner in dealing with registration matters during an appeal on quantum.

Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa considered the case where an assessee, previously registered under the old Income-tax Act, failed to file a return for the assessment year 1962-63 under the new Act. The dispute arose regarding the validity of a declaration filed under section 184(7) without submitting the return of income. The revenue argued that without registration under the new Act, the declaration alone could not confer registered status. The Tribunal held that without prior registration, continuation of registration under section 184(7) was not applicable. The Court analyzed the legal provisions and held that as per section 184(7), a firm must file a declaration along with the return of income for registration to continue. Since the return was not filed, the registration granted under the old Act did not extend to the assessment year in question. The Court referred to precedents from Mysore High Court to support its interpretation, differing from an Allahabad High Court decision cited by the parties.

Regarding the jurisdiction issue, the revenue contended that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exceeded his authority by addressing registration matters during an appeal on quantum. The Court did not delve into this argument extensively as the primary issue of registration was resolved based on the failure to file the return along with the declaration. Consequently, the Court reframed the question referred for consideration to focus on the relevance of the declaration filed without the return. The Court ultimately concluded that the declaration filed by the assessee under section 184(7) for the assessment year 1962-63, without being accompanied by the return of income, was of no avail. Therefore, the Court answered the reframed question in the negative, stating that the declaration was not effective in the given circumstances.

In conclusion, the High Court discharged the reference, emphasizing that the declaration without the return was insufficient for registration continuation. Both judges, G. K. Mishra and B. K. Ray, were in agreement with the decision.