9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. When asked to explain the delay, the assessee filed an affidavit sworn by its accountant to show that the original partnership deed along with copies and application form was given to him by one of the partners but he was under the impression that they are to be filed with the ITO along with the return. The ITO, however, refused to condone the delay and rejected the assessee's claim for registration. The said conclusion was upheld by the AAC on appeal. The assessee has come up in second appeal before us. 2. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in this appeal and in our opinion there is no force therein. One argument advanced on behalf of the assessee was that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the counsel before the end of the accounting year. If it is so, the signatures of the partners would be of a date earlier than the close of the accounting year. At the time of hearing before us, Shri Daga contended that the partners of the assessee-firm had signed blank application forms which, accordingly, had actually been filled in by Shri Daga when the papers were received by him in June 1978. This means that the date of June 1978, filled in by him, was actually not the date of the signatures by the partners on those application forms. In other words, either Shri Daga has added the date of his own which is not in accordance with the spirit of law, inasmuch as the date is to be inserted on which the application is actually signed or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incomes no fresh assessment as an unregistered firm could be made as it would involve double taxation. For this purpose, reliance was placed on a number of authorities namely, CIT v. Blue Mountain Engg. Corpn. [1978] 112 ITR 839 (Mad.), Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 747 (Guj.) and Universal Commercial Co. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 775 (Mad.). All these authorities lay down that once the ITO has exercised the option of assessing the partners on the share income of the firm, it would not be open to him to assess the firm as an unregistered firm. We are afraid we are not inclined to accept the assessee's contention raised in this behalf. Firstly, most of these decisions are under the 1922 Act and in this behalf, the AAC has rightly dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was contended that there would not be much difference in the tax effect if the assessee-firm is taken as registered firm and the partners are assessed on their share income as against treating the assessee as an unregistered firm. It was contended that the partners have their individual income at a fairly higher figures so that the revenue will not suffer much as a result of refusal of the present registration. According to the assessee, the total difference was only Rs. 210 as per chart shown at page 10 of the paper book. Apart from the fact that the tax effect is not material because the registration has to be granted according to law, we find that the calculation by the assessee at page 10 is not final one. It has been stated that in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
