9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of the partner, Gopiram, on October 2, 1974, the firm was dissolved and the order refusing to grant continuation of registration under section 184(7) till October 2, 1974, and holding that there was a change in the constitution of the firm is legally correct ? (iii) Whether, in view of the unsettled position of law in regard to a change in the constitution or succession of the firm, the finding that the applicant should have made an application in Form No. 11A before the end of the accounting year and that the delay could not be condoned was legally correct ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that only one assessment has to be made for the entire previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 974, when Gopiram died, and the other for the period from October 3, 1974, to the end of the previous year, namely, November 13, 1974. Along with these returns filed on January 31, 1978, the assessee also made an application in Form No. 11A for registration of the firm. Since the application in this behalf had become barred by time by then, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. On the facts of the instant case, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Act and, consequently, it was incumbent on it to have applied for registration of the firm. As regards the application for condonation of delay in making the application for registration, it may be pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nswered the said question in Ayodhya Prasad Parameshwaridas v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 605 (MP) by saying that section 184(7) of the Act read with Form No. 12 contemplates continuance of registration for part of a year only when the firm stands dissolved and there is no question of continuation of registration for part of the year when the firm continues after a change in its constitution which is not evidenced by an instrument of partnership. In such a case, an application for registration has to be made in accordance with the new instrument of partnership. This Misc. Civil Case has now been listed before us for answering the aforesaid four questions. Learned counsel for the parties have candidly made a statement that in view of the opinion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding is essentially finding of fact and in view of this finding, question No. 3 has to be answered in the affirmative. In view of the foregoing discussion, our opinion is as under: (i) In regard to question No. 1, our opinion is that on the material on record, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the firm was not entitled to registration under section 185 of the Act was legally correct. (ii) In regard to question No. 2, our opinion is that the finding that in view of the fact of death of the partner, Gopiram, on October 2, 1974, the firm was dissolved and the order refusing to grant continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Act till October 2, 1974, and holding that there was a change in the constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
