9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 1968, and its continuance for year ending March 31, 1969. Teja Singh, one of the partners, died on March 29, 1970, and for the assessment year 1970-71, the firm filed two returns, one for the period from April 1, 1969, to March 29, 1970, and the second for the remaining two days of the year ending on March 31, 1970. Along with the return, declaration in Form No. 12 was also filed for allowing continuation of the registration of the firm up to March 29, 1970. The return for the two days was submitted as an unregistered firm. The Income-tax Officer accepted the declaration contained in Form No. 12 and allowed continuation of the registration for the period up to March 29, 1970. For the remaining period of two days, the provisions of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29, 1970, and as there was no change in the constitution of the firm, the declaration in Form No. 12 was correct and thus the Income-tax Officer's order allowing continuation of the registration was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in vacating the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax by holding that even if a change in the constitution had occurred on the death of Teja Singh and an application for registration in Form No. 11A was not erroneous when by accepting the declaration in Form No. 12, registration was allowed in substance and the defect, if any, in the application was impliedly condoned? 3. Whether, on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partnership deed with the inclusion of the heirs of the deceased was executed on August 17, 1970, though the firm was constituted with effect from April 1, 1970. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, rightly allowed the continuation of the registration upto March 29, 1970, and to this extent, the decision of the Tribunal was correct. However, it went wrong in saying that there was no change in the constitution of the firm even after the death of Teja Singh on the ground that the firm was not to be dissolved and continued by virtue of clause 14 of the partnership deed. Even though the firm continued, there was certainly change in its constitution because Teja Singh had died and ceased to be partner. As the Revenue was to be adversely affected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh, then application in Form Ng. 11A was required to be filed. In the absence of an application in the said form, the, Income-tax Officer was not competent to grant registration to the newly constituted firm on the basis of the declaration in Form No. 12. Consequently, the first portion of question No. 2 that the Tribunal was right in law in vacating the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is answered in the affirmative for the reasons recorded above but the latter part of the question is answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 3, it was not disputed, is covered by a decision of this court in Jupiter Foundry and Machines (Knives) v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 92, and is accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
