1976 (6) TMI 65 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal of continuation of registration to the assessee firm under s. 184 (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1972-73.

Detailed Analysis:
The Income-tax Officer refused continuation of registration to the assessee firm under s. 184 (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee failed to file the declaration in Form No. 12 within the specified time, leading to a delay of about two and a half years. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee did not fulfill the requirements of proviso (ii) of s. 184 (7), resulting in the status of the assessee being treated as URF. The AAC confirmed this decision, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence supporting the assessee's claim of timely filing.

The assessee contended that they had a history of timely filing and had submitted the declaration in Form No. 12 on 9th June 1972, although it was not traceable in the office. Additional documents were filed later to support their claim, but they were also missing from the office records. An affidavit by a partner of the assessee firm supported the claim that the declaration was filed on time. The Tribunal believed the assessee's case based on the partner's affidavit and the consistent filing pattern in previous years, concluding that the declaration was indeed filed on 9th June 1972, but had been misplaced.

The Tribunal referenced a case law to clarify the interpretation of the provisions regarding registration of firms under s. 184 (7). While acknowledging the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, the Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the declaration before the due date, and the subsequent filing of a fresh declaration was justified due to misplacement. The departmental representative argued lack of evidence for the initial filing date, but the Tribunal relied on probabilities favoring the assessee.

Regarding the appealability of the decision, the departmental representative contended that no appeal lies against the refusal for continuation of registration under s. 184 (7). However, the Tribunal referenced a previous ruling to establish that the appeal was maintainable concerning the status of the assessee. As the assessee asserted the status should be a registered firm, the Tribunal deemed the appeal valid and directed the Income-tax Officer to allow continuation of registration and assess the assessee as a registered firm.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee should be treated as a registered firm for the assessment year 1972-73, based on the belief that the declaration was timely filed but misplaced, and the probabilities favored the assessee.