9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for the assessment year 1985-86. Since the assessee could not establish the filing of Form No. 11 with and deed of partnership as claimed, it filed Form No. 11 with deed of partnership on 23-5-1988 seeking registration for the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee's claim was negatived for the reason that the application in Form No. 11 was not filed in time. The order became final, as the assessee did not go in appeal against the said order of refusal to grant registration. For the subsequent two years i.e. assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the assessee had filed Form No. 12 claiming continuation of registration. These Forms were filed within time. Besides, the assessee filed application in Form No. 11 along with deed of partnershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fusing grant of registration for the assessment year 1985-86 in terms of Board's Circular No. 3P(XXV-22) of 1964 dated 29-7-1964. It was argued before the DCIT(Appeals) that the assessee had, however, filed Form No. 11 seeking grant of registration for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 on 23-5-1988. It was also argued before him that the Assessing Officer has not cast any doubt on the genuineness of the firm and, therefore, when the assessee had filed Form No. 11 seeking grant of registration for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 within the time stipulated in the above circular of the Board, the Assessing Officer ought to have granted registration to the firm for these two assessment years. Request was made for issuing necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay was filed before the Assessing Officer . He further argued that the question of giving one month's time to the assessee to the file fresh application for registration as stipulated in the Board's Circular dated 29-7-1964 did not arise, as the assessee had already filed application for registration for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, even before the firm was refused registration for the assessment year 1985-86. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the DCIT(Appeals) be set aside. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee was fully aware that its application for registration for the assessment year 1985-86 was delayed and, therefore, there was likelihood of refusal by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the declaration as incompetent allow the partners of the firm an opportunity for filing an application for registration within one month provided the declaration for the continuation of registration for that year was filed in time. We find that in the case of Jagdish Ram Shankar Dass v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 511/5 Taxman 80 their Lordships of Punjab & Haryana High Court have held that the filing of a declaration in time is a condition precedent for giving concession as envisaged in the said Circular of the Board. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that during the pendency of the assessee's application for grant of registration for the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee had filed declaration in Form No. 12 in time for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
