ANIL SOUND CAPS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act :

(2.) THE assessee is a firm consisting of four partners, viz., 1. Papanasa Nadar, 2. Paulraj Nadar, 3. Annamalai Nadar, and 4. Sunderaswamy. THE share of each of these partners deferred and it is not material for our present purpose. THE assessee filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuance of registration. This declaration was signed by the legal representative of the first partner, namely, Papanasa Nadar, who died, any by Paulraj and Annamalai. Sundaraswamy, the fourth partner, did not append his signature to the form. This form was filed on January 7, 1971, before the ITO.

(3.) IT may be seen that there are two distinct steps to be taken in the case of an application for registration. A firm may for the first time apply for registration and in such a case sub-ss. (1) to (6) of s. 184 would apply. Where registration is granted to a firm for any earlier assessment year, that registration would have effect for every subsequent under provided the two conditions prescribed by sub-s. (7) of s. 184 were complied with, namely, (i) the filing of a declaration that there was no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners, and (ii) filing it within the period prescribed by sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 139. There is also power on the part of the ITO to condone the delay in filing the declaration for the first time if there was sufficient cause for doing so. In the case of the declaration being defective, sub-s. (3) of s. 185 requires the ITO to intimate the firm about the existence of the defect and the deed for its rectification within a period of one month. As contrasted with sub-s. (7) of s. 184, there is no power to condone the delay available under sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) of s. 185. IT is in the context of these provisions that we have to consider the question referred to us.