1973 (12) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Whether a declaration made under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for continuation of partnership signed by the partners, before the expiry of the accounting period is a valid declaration in law - we find that the question which is referred to us should be answered in the negative

Summary

Issues:
Validity of declaration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act made before the expiry of the accounting period.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of GUJARAT involved a case concerning the validity of a declaration made under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act before the expiry of the accounting period. The respondent, a partnership firm, filed a return for the assessment year 1967-68 along with a defective declaration under section 184(7) as it was not signed by two partners initially. A revised return was later filed with a new declaration dated June 13, 1966, signed by all partners. The Income-tax Officer accepted this declaration and assessed the firm as a registered firm. However, upon examination, the Additional Commissioner found discrepancies in the declaration and called for an explanation from the firm. The Commissioner ultimately canceled the registration and directed the Income-tax Officer to treat the firm as unregistered.

The Appellate Tribunal later found that the declaration was valid for the assessment year 1967-68, contrary to the Commissioner's view. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the declaration made before the accounting period's end was invalid under section 184(7) of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act and Rules were discussed, emphasizing the importance of a valid declaration for the continuation of registration for subsequent years. The declaration in Form No. 12 was required to confirm no changes in the firm's constitution or partners' shares up to the previous year's end relevant to the assessment year.

The Court noted that the declaration made by the firm in June 1966, before the accounting period's end in November 1966, did not meet the requirements of section 184(7). It was highlighted that the declaration was not a mere formality but a crucial condition for the firm's registration continuation. The Court emphasized that the right to continue registration was dependent on submitting a valid declaration as per the Act's provisions. As the firm's declaration was made prematurely, it was deemed invalid, and the assessment treating the firm as registered was without a proper declaration. The Court concluded that the question posed by the Tribunal should be answered in the negative, upholding the revenue's appeal and dismissing the firm's position. The costs were awarded against the respondent-assessee.