9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment status of the assessee as 'AOP' instead of 'firm'. 2. The mandatory nature of filing a certified copy of the partnership deed along with the return of income under section 184(2). Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment Status of the Assessee as 'AOP' Instead of 'Firm': The primary issue in this case revolves around the assessment status of the assessee. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the status adopted by the Assessing Officer (AO) as an Association of Persons (AOP) instead of a firm. The assessee claimed that they had been carrying on business as a firm for several years, evidenced by a partnership deed filed along with the return of income. The AO, however, assessed the assessee as an AOP because the partnership deed provided was not a "certified copy" as required by section 184(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Mandatory Nature of Filing a Certified Copy of the Partnership Deed Along with the Return of Income Under Section 184(2): The crux of the dispute lies in whether the requirement to file a certified copy of the partnership deed along with the return of income is mandatory or directory. The assessee contended that the requirement was directory and that substantial compliance should suffice. The CIT(A) and AO, however, held that the requirement was mandatory, and failure to comply would result in the assessee being assessed as an AOP. Analysis and Judgment: Assessment Status of the Assessee: The tribunal considered the facts that the assessee filed an uncertified copy of the partnership deed with the return and later provided a certified copy during the assessment proceedings. The tribunal referred to various judicial decisions and concluded that the object of section 184(2) is to ensure that only properly constituted firms are assessed as firms. The tribunal opined that if the certified copy of the instrument is available before the AO when the assessment is being framed, the objective of the legislature is achieved. Thus, the requirement of the certified copy accompanying the return does not seem compelling enough to deny the status of a firm if compliance is made before the assessment is completed. Mandatory vs. Directory Nature of Section 184(2): The tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 184 and the legislative intent behind them. It noted that the conditions for assessment as a firm include the partnership being evidenced by an instrument, the individual shares of the partners being specified in the instrument, and a certified copy of the instrument accompanying the return of income. The tribunal emphasized that while the first two conditions are mandatory, the third condition of filing a certified copy along with the return is procedural. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observations that the use of the word "shall" does not necessarily make a provision mandatory. The tribunal concluded that the requirement to file a certified copy of the partnership deed along with the return is directory, and substantial compliance, as evidenced by the assessee's actions, is sufficient. Conclusion: The tribunal directed the AO to assess the assessee as a firm, holding that the provision about the certified copy of the instrument accompanying the return of income is directory in nature. The tribunal found that the assessee's substantial compliance with the requirement suffices for assessment as a firm. The alternative plea regarding the necessity of issuing a notice to file the return in the status of AOP was deemed academic and without merit, as the AO had already issued a show-cause notice. In summary, the tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of legislative intent and substantial compliance, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee's assessment as a firm.
|
