9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm No. 11 or 11A was filed for the period from 10th April, 1977 to 31st Aug., 1977 and it was claimed that only an oral agreement was in existence during this period. The ITO, in the absence of a fresh partnership deed and application in From No. 11 or 11A, treated the firm as unregistered. This action of the ITO was also upheld in appeal. 3. The assessee filed a second appeal and before the Tribunal it was submitted that since an application for renewal of registration in Form No. 12 had been filed in time, registration should have been granted to the assessee at least upto 9th April, 1977. The Tribunal did not accept the above contention in view of he decision of the Full Bench of the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Girdhari Lal Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w. e. f. 1st April, 1975 has added the following proviso to s. 187 (2) fo the IT Act which reads as under: "Provided that nothing contained in cl. (a) shall apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of partner." 6. That by insertion of the above proviso in s. 187 (2) of The IT Act with retrospective effect i. e. from 1st April, 1975, the inevitable consequence is that the firm stood dissolved on 6th April, 1977 on the death of Smt. Khadeza Begum and, therefore, s. 187 (2) had no application and accordingly the firm became entitled to continuation of registration for the period From No. 12, filed and the income earned during the period from 1st Sept., 1976 to 9th April, 1977 requires to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application for renewal of registration in Form No. 18 had been filed within time, and the second assessment should be made for the period 10th April, 1977 to 31st Aug., 1977 in the status of an unregistered firm since no application in Form No. 11 or 11A was filed in respect of this period. the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal which calls for any rectification. 6. After hearing the learned representative of the parties, we are of the opinion that in view of the retrospective amendment of s. 187 (2) of the IT Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1975, wherein it has been laid down that the provisions of cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 187 of the IT Act would not apply to a case where the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny application in Forms Nos. 11 or 11A nor a copy of the partnership deed was filed within time. However, in respect of the period 1st Sept., 1976 to 9th April, 1977, the assessee has claimed that an application in Form No. 12 was filed within time and, hence, for this period registration should be allowed to the firm. We direct that this fact should be verified and if the assessee has, in fact, filed an application in Form No. 12 within time and in the proper manner, registration should be allowed to the assessee firm for period 1st Sept., 1976 to 9th April, 1977. 7. The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the Tribunal dt. 23rd Aug., 1984 in ITA No. 218/Ind/83 should be treated as ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
