RAMAKRISHNA MINING COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, concerns assessments made for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee was described in the orders of assessment as an unregistered firm composed of a certain Raja, Venkatarama Chetty, and his son, Govindarajulu.

(2.) IT is undisputed that a certain Thiruvengadam Chetty was the grantee of a mining lease under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. There was an assignment of this lease by Thiruvengadam Chetty to Venkatarama Chetty on 31st Oct., 1954. Venkatarama Chetty formed a partnership along with six others on 1st Nov., 1954, for carrying on the mining operations. There was again a second assignment by Thiruvengadam Chetty of the identical mining lease on 11th Feb., 1955, once again to Venkatarama Chetty. On 1st July, 1955, Venkatarama Chetty formed a second partnership, the partners being himself and his son, Govindarajulu.

(3.) THE first question relates to a period of only three months forming part of the asst. yr. 1956-57. THE application for registration was sought by the firm of which Venkatarama Chetty, the assignee from Thiruvengadam Chetty, and six others were partners under the instrument of partnership executed on 1st Nov., 1954. THE ITO, the AAC and the Tribunal alluded to the fact that the application, which concerned the period of three months, was made beyond the period prescribed, although as Mr. Visvanatha Iyer, appearing for the assessee, contends that the delay in making the application did not constitute the foundation of the refusal of the registration. However that may be, Mr. Visvanatha Iyer did not contend that the answer to the first question should be in favour of the assessee. He very frankly admitted that, since the application in respect of that period of three months was made beyond the period prescribed, the answer to the first question should be against the assessee and we answer it accordingly. Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cover the same ground although they are worded in somewhat different phraseology. Mr. Rajasekhara Murthy, appearing for the respondent, made the submission that the real question which we should decide is that presented by the second question and that the answer to the third and the fourth questions would depend upon our answer to the second. We think Mr. Rajasekhara Murthy is right in making this submission.