9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 1962-63, and filed a similar declaration on 14th June, 1963, for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1963-64. The business of the assessee-firm was of dealing in kirana, grains, etc. The assessee had started the business of plying a truck on 11th November, 1958, which truck had been purchased for Rs. 27,534. The assessee had a half share in the ownership of the said truck, whilst the other half share belonged to one Ranganath and one Bajirao. For S.Y. 2014 and S.Y. 2015, relevant to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, respectively, the assessee had disclosed its half share of the income earned from the plying of the said truck in its return. In S. Y. 2016, relevant to the assessment year 1,961-62, the said Ranganath and the said Bajirao were paid off by the assessee in respect of their shares in the said truck. The assessee, however, did not disclose in its return any income from the said truck for S.Y. 2016, S.Y.2017 and S. Y. 2018, which are the relevant previous years for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively, on the ground that the said truck had been taken over by one Nemichand, one of the partners of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct for the purposes of the assessment year 1961-62 is the Act of 1922. Section 26A of the Act of 1922 deals with the procedure for the registration of firms. Sub-section (1) of the said section provides that the application for registration can be made on behalf of any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership, specifying the individual shares of the partners. Sub-section (2) of s. 26A runs thus: " The application shall be made by such person or persons, and at such times and shall contain such particulars and shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed ; and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer in such manner as may be prescribed." The relevant rules of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, which dealt with applications for registration of firms, were rr. 2 to 6B. Rule 2 provided, inter alia, that the application for registration had to be signed by all the partners, not being minors. A time-limit for making the application was also provided by the said r. 2, with a proviso conferring, Power on the ITO concerned to entertain an application made after the expiry of the time-limit provided in the said rule. Rule 3 provided that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of section 139 (whether fixed originally or on extension) for furnishing the return of income for such subsequent assessment year, a declaration to that effect, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, so, however, that where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the declaration within the time so allowed, he may allow the firm to furnish the declaration at any time before the assessment is made." It is significant that Form No. 12 in the I.T. Rules, 1962, which is the form prescribed for the declaration under s. 184(7) does not provide that the amount of profits or losses coming to the share of each of the partners should be set out-therein, unlike the forms provided for a similar declaration under the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922. As far as the first question is concerned, in our view, the matter is practically concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT [1972] 831 ITR 175. In that case the appellant-firm had applied for a renewal of registration for the assessment year 1948-49, under s. 26A of the Act of 1922. The application was signed by all the partners, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee-firm not being allowed by the ITO or by reason of certain receipts claimed by the assessee-firm to be of capital nature being held to be of revenue nature. What we have before us, however, is a case where, on the findings given, which are binding on us, the case is one of plain suppression of income and hence the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram's case [1972] 83 ITR 175, is clearly applicable. Question No. 1, as reframed by us, must, therefore, be answered against the assessee. As far as question No. 2, as framed by us and set out earlier, is concerned, the submission of Mr. Munim, the learned counsel for the assessee, is that in view of the expression " for any assessment year " used in subs. (7) of s. 184, which we have set out earlier, it is sufficient, for the renewal of a registration under the Act of 1961, that the firm in question should have been granted registration in any previous assessment year, provided that the other conditions prescribed in the said sub-s. (7) of s. 184 are complied with. It was pointed out by him that it was not in dispute in the present case that the assessee-firm has complied with the other condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
