9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 3, 1975, the firm was reconstituted as follows : Subhkaran Jatia ... 25% share Shivhari Jatia ... 25% share Vinodkumar Jatia ... 25% share and Anilkumar jatia (minor) ... 25% share As a result of this partnership deed dated September 3, 1975, Sunilkumar jatia (minor), who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, was not continued to be given the said benefits and Anilkumar jatia, who was a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On November 4, 1975 (Kartik Sud 1, Samvat 2032), the partnership deed in question was signed by the partners. Along therewith the partners also signed Form No. 11A, under the Rules framed under the I.T. Act, 1961, for the purpose of applying for registration of the firm for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artered accountants of the firm forwarded Form No. 11A to the ITO. In the said letter, the chartered accountants had stated that the change in the constitution of the firm had taken place by a partnership deed duly executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100 as on September 3, 1975, that registration to the firm was granted for all the previous years and that there existed a genuine firm, and that the application for registration had been duly signed by the partners on November 4, 1975, and the same had been also handed over in time to the chartered accountants. In these circumstances, the chartered accountants contended that the delay (for no fault of the assessee) in filing Form No. 11A be condoned. On April 26, 1980, Vinodkumar Jatia, one of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been granted registration for all subsequent assessment years. In the context, it is relevant and pertinent to note that it is not the case of the Department that the firm was either bogus or had in fact no legal existence. In fact, as indicated, this very firm has been registered for the subsequent assessment years. Indeed, the firm had also produced before the authorities even a letter from a nationalised bank, the Central Bank of India, stating that the partner, Vinodkumar Jatia, of the reconstituted firm was operating the current account of the firm, since May 17, 1976, thus covering the period falling within the disputed assessment year involved in this petition. Equally pertinent is the fact that the firm's letter dated August 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been to accept the firm's request and condone the delay in filing Form No. II A. Refusal to do so resulted in technicality triumphing over justice. A party may not suffer for no fault on his part and for a sheer mistake or oversight on the part of his legal or tax advisers. All that was necessary for the firm to do was in fact done by it and its partners. That the chartered accountants made a mistake through oversight should not have been considered a fatal circumstance outweighing all the other facts and circumstances in favour of the assessee. Though to be perfect is divine, this mortal world has not as yet come across one so perfect and divine as to make no mistake at all. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
