9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been condoned?" The facts and circumstances leading to the present reference may be set out in brief. The assessee is a partnership firm. During the previous year relating to the assessment year 1972-73, the accounting year ended on October 18, 1971. The application for grant of registration in Form No. 11 was filed on September 18, 1972. Therefore, the application was out of time. The assessee filed an application for condonation but, on the facts, the same was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay but still he directed grant of registration in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have granted registration to the firm. He has further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar's case [1966] 60 ITR 95 has no application to the cases arising under the Act because that case has proceeded on an interpretation of section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is materially different from the charging section envisaged under the Act of 1961. In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to enter into the question raised by Mr. Vidyarthi because the Central Board of Direct Taxes, pursuant to the statutory powers conferred on it under section 119 of the Act, has issued a circular to meet the situation like the present case, which is binding on the income-tax authorities. After referring to the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Act, still according to the apex court, the circulars are binding on the Income-tax Officers. Therefore, even if the application for condonation of the delay in filing the registration application had been rejected and the assessee in strict terms of section 185 of the Act was not entitled to registration, still, in view of the statutory directions of the Board, the Income-tax Officer was bound to treat the firm as registered. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. V. H. Sheth [1984] 148 ITR 169. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee with costs assessed at Rs. 250. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA J. -I agree. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
