9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 1979, a firm came into existence with the following partners. (i) Shri Jagdish Rai (ii) Shri Sat Pal (iii) Shri Ram Kumar and (iv) Smt. Pushpa Wati. The issue of granting registration to the so constituted firm came up for consideration before the ITO for the asst. yr. 1980-81. It appears that the ITO treated the firm as an AOP and refused registration by making an order under s. 185(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. That order of the ITO came up to be challenged before the AAC who by his order dt. 20th June, 1983 held that the firm was genuinely constituted by these four partners and as such was entitled to registration. He accordingly directed the ITO the grant registration to the assessee firm. It is common ground before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The ITO issued show-cause notice tot he assessee as to why continuation of registration need not be refused. A reply was filed on 11th Oct., 1983 with the plea that there was every justification for allowing continuation of registration and that an opportunity be granted to the assessee to cross-examine Jagdish Rai. Certain authorities cited in the reply were considered by the ITO and he came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that no declaration in form No. 12 duly signed by all the partners had been submitted in the prescribed time and even false declaration had been prepared with fabricated signatures, and submitted to the ITO to defraud the Revenue, there was no case for continuation of registration. The continuation of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have appended his signatures on that form and, therefore, it was apparent that the assessee has filed that form with an ulterior motive. The authorities below, therefore, rightly considered such a form as not worthy of consideration for granting continuation of registration to the assessee firm. Once the assessee had filed form No. 12 on 15th Sept., 1983, form No. 12 filed on 25th July, 1981 could not be considered. The Continuation of registration was therefore rightly refused. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that r. 24 deals with declaration for continuation of registration and provides that such declaration under s. 184(7) shall be in form No. 12 and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below failed to appreciate this position as is evident from the observations made by the AAC in para 4 of his impugned order. The provisions are so clear that no clarification is necessary. 10. However, we find that a situation like this was dealt with the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S. B. Rattnaswamy and Sons noted supra. It was held by the Hon'ble Court that even if the persons liable to make the declaration in form No 12 are identified with reference only to the expression "persons concerned" occurring in r. 24 of the IT Rules, 1961 and not with reference to r. 22(5), there is support in the scheme of the Act for the view that it is the persons of the "firm" as subsisting and as constituted on the date of ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
