1999 (7) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stributed the profit amongst the partners. He therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 175 (SC) refused to allow continuation of registration to the assessee-firm. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow continuation of registration to the assessee-firm. The Revenue aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative reiterated the same facts and he apart from relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram, further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mukhi Moolchand Sitaldas vs. CIT 1978 C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have been granted) to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year: Provided that- (i) there is no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of the partnership on the basis of which the registration was granted; and (ii) the firm furnishes, before the expiry of the time allowed under [sub-s. (1) of s. 139] for furnishing the return of income for such subsequent assessment year, declaration to that effect, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, so, however, that where the AO is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the declaration within the time so allowed, he may allow the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hon'ble apex Court is not applicable for deciding the matter of continuation of registration under the IT Act, 1961. Similarly, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mukhi Moolchand Sitaldas is also under the IT Act, 1922, and the same is also not applicable to the case under consideration, because here the assessment year involved is asst. yr. 1992-93 for which s. 184(7) of the IT Act, 1961, would be applicable. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nemichand Rajmal Co. has considered this aspect in detail. In that case before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the issue for continuation of registration for asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1963-64 was in dispute. It was an admitted position that the income from tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X