9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm of 5 partners among whom Smt. P. Chenchamma and Smt. B. Rama Lakshmma are two. They constituted as a partnership under the terms of the deed dated 22-9-1977. For the assessment year 1978-79 the firm applied for registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by filing an application in Form No. 11A accompanied by the partnership deed dated 22-9-1977. During the course of assessment proceedings of her son, Madduletaiah, who is one of the partners of the assessee-firm, Smt. P. Chenchamma admitted that she is a benamidar of her son, Madduletaiah. So also Smt. B. Rama Lakshmma admitted to be a benamidar of her husband Sri Ramasubbaiah, who retired from partnership in the preceding assessment year, in the course of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prescribed time stated in the proviso to rule 24A(2). However, the assessee-firm addressed a letter dated 24-9-1979 addressed to the ITO in this regard which is as follows : " To The Income-tax Officer, KURNOOL A-Ward, Kurnool. Dt. 24-9-1979 Sir, Sub :--Filing of Form No. 12A--Time Requested. Ref :--Asst. of M/s Batchu Nagisetti, P. Maddulataiah, Betamcherla for 1978-79 asst. The assessee could not file Form 12A along with deed of partnership or along with the return of income because the assessee was under the impression that he need not file any Form 12A because the partner in the firm is a benami of HUF. The assessee is prepared to file Form 12A even now if opportunity is given for filing, the same condoning the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s point is not res integra, and it is decided by both the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Madras and Kerala High Courts in STO v. K.I. Abraham [1967] 20 STC 367 (SC), Second ITO v. M.C. T. Trust [1976] 102 ITR 138 (Mad.), M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust v. Fourth ITO [1972] 86 ITR 282, (Mad.), CIT v. Shree Padmanabhaswami Temple Trust [1979] 120 ITR 42(Ker.). It is enough if we consider the last of the decisions. The question that came up before the Kerala High Court revolves round the true meaning of section 11(2)(a) of the Act which at that relevant time stood as follows : " Su c h person specifies, by notice in writing, given to the Income-tax Officer in the prescribed manner, the purpose for which the income is being accumul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s inadequate and incompetent to take in the time element. Therefore, the provision of a time element in para 2 of Form No. 10 prescribed by rule 17 of the Rules is beyond the provision of section 11 and rule 17 : Held, on the facts of the case, that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the investments made by the assessee, a temple trust whose objects were charitable and religious, after the expiry of the period mentioned in para 2 of Form No. 10 prescribed by rule 17 of the Rules had to be considered for the purpose of section 11(2) of the Act and, therefore, the income was exempt from taxation." (pp. 42-43) While holding that the expression 'in the prescribed manner' is inadequate and incompetent to take in the time el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
