1980 (5) TMI 70 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal of registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77.
2. Applicability of Form No. 11A versus Form No. 11 for registration application.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appropriate form for registration.
4. Appealability of the refusal to condone the delay under section 246(j) of the Act.
5. Genuine intention of the assessee in filing the incorrect form for registration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the ITAT arose from the refusal of registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee firm filed an application in Form No. 11A, which was later corrected to Form No. 11. The ITO and the AAC both rejected the application due to the incorrect form used and the delay in filing the correct form.

2. The AAC concurred with the ITO's decision that the application should have been made in Form No. 11 instead of Form No. 11A. The AAC also dismissed the argument for rectifying the form, stating that the prescribed form did not exist. The question of entertaining a belated application was deemed within the ITO's discretion and not appealable under section 246 of the Act.

3. The assessee contended that the refusal to condone the delay was appealable under section 246(j) of the Act. The counsel relied on precedents from the Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. It was argued that the delay was due to a clerical error, and the genuine intention of the assessee was to comply with the registration requirements.

4. The Revenue, represented by Shri C.P. Joshi, supported the AAC's decision, emphasizing that the correct form for registration was Form No. 11. Reference was made to a decision of the Patna High Court to support this argument.

5. The ITAT considered the submissions of both parties and acknowledged that the firm was genuine. Despite the incorrect initial form filed, the subsequent filing of Form No. 11 demonstrated the assessee's intention to comply. The ITAT found that the delay was due to inadvertent mistake and clerical error, not intentional non-compliance. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to registration for the assessment year 1976-77. Additionally, the ITAT clarified the appealability of the refusal to condone the delay, citing precedents from the Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. The decision of the Patna High Court was deemed irrelevant to the current case.

In conclusion, the ITAT directed the ITO to allow registration to the assessee firm for the assessment year 1976-77, thereby allowing the appeal.