9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontinuation of registration to the petitioner's firm for the year in dispute. It is not disputed that in the previous years relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 there was change in the constitution of the firm and a fresh deed of partnership was drawn up and the application for fresh registration was granted by the ITO. It was continued in 1974-75. In 1975-76 also, the petitioner filed requisite Form No. 12 seeking continuation of registration under s. 184(7) of the Act on 2nd June, 1975. It is further not disputed that the form was duly signed by all the partners constituting the firm. It was filed in time containing declaration that business was same and there was no change in share. The ITO, however, rejected the application and fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the order refusing to grant registration, the petitioner filed two separate applications under s. 264 of the Act before the Commissioner who also upheld the order of the ITO on merits. None of the reasons mentioned by the ITO for refusing to continue registration can be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioner followed Asra Sudi Duij as the previous year. For assessment year 1975-76 the previous year commenced from 2nd July, 1973, and closed on 22nd June, 1974. It was explained by the petitioner that the form was got signed by partners for which ample time was available and, therefore, 31st May, 1975, was put on it and it was handed over to the counsel. But as I St June was Sunday it was filed on 2nd June. There was nothing inherently wro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration was automatic unless, of course, the ITO found after enquiry that the firm was not genuine. There is no such finding in any order passed by any of the authorities. Under sub-s. (7) of s. 184 if it is provided that where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year it shall be effective for the subsequent assessment year provided that there was no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of partners and the application was filed within time. As the application filed by the petitioner complied with the requirement of sub-s. (7), it was incumbent on the ITO to allow registration. Even under s. 185, the only jurisdiction that the ITO had was to get the defect rectified within one month. To reject the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
