COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KEPEECEE TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called "the Tribunal"), has referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 (for short "the Act"), the following question of law as arising out of its order dated August 31, 1977, in I.T.A. No. 326/Coch/76-77:

(2.) THE assessee is a firm of six partners constituted under a deed dated September 16, 1971, for the purpose of carrying on business in purchase and sale of pepper, dry ginger, etc. THE firm had been granted registration for the assessment year 1972-73. In this case we are concerned with the assessment year 1973-74, for which the relevant period of account is the year ending March 31, 1973. Along with the return for the said assessment year, which was filed only on July 1, 1974, the assessee presented before the ITO a declaration in Form No. 12 in purported compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 184 of the Act. THE ITO issued a communication to the assessee pointing out that the said declaration had been filed beyond the time-limit specified in the said proviso. THEreupon the assessee, by its letter dated September 24, 1974, submitted its explanation for the delay in furnishing the declaration and requested that the declaration filed by the firm before the assessment was made may be accepted on the ground that sufficient cause had been made out for the delay. THE assessment was thereafter finalised by the ITO as per the assessment order dated December 31, 1975, a copy of which has been produced as annex. " B " to the statement of case. By the said order the ITO rejected the assessee's request for accepting the declaration filed beyond the prescribed time-limit and proceeded to assess the firm in the status of an unregistered firm. THEreupon the assessee preferred an appeal before the concerned AAC, against the quantification of the taxable income of the firm made in the assessment. THE only point taken in the appeal was that the assessment should have been made against the firm as a registered firm and that the ITO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's request to accept the declaration filed under the proviso to Section 184(7) and refusing to extend to the assessee the benefit of continuance of registration under Sub-section (7) of Section 184.

(3.) A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.