HALIMA FANCY STORES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, a firm of partnership carrying on business in fancy and general goods under the name and style of "Halima Fancy Stores", was constituted by an instrument of partnership dated April 28, 1962, and was carrying on business from April 1, 1962. THE partners of the firm were Amina Bivi, N. Hussain and K. A. Sulaiman with one Halima Begum, a minor, admitted to the benefits of the partnership. THE firm was registered under Section 184 for the assessment year 1963-64 and the registration was continued for 1964-65. A fresh deed of partnership came to be executed on September 3, 1964, during the previous year ended March 31, 1965, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66. Under this deed, Halima Begum was described as aged 19 years and was taken as a full-fledged partner. It was stated in this deed that she attained the age of majority on the expiry of March 31. 1964, and has been equated as a full-fledged partner from April 1, 1964. THE firm also filed an application on January 20, 1965, in Form 11 for fresh registration for the assessment year 1965-66 under Section 184(1). THE return for the assessment year 1965-66, corresponding to the year ended March 31, 1965d, was filed on July 29, 1965, declaring a total income of Rs. 66,870.64 and showing the names of partners and the extent of the share held by each of them in Part III of the return. Halima Begum's name also finds a place in the names of partners and her interest in the partnership was shown as two annas share. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to produce proof regarding the age of Halima Begum. THE birth extract of the Corporation of Madras produced by the assessee showed the date of birth as August 31, 1947, and the school register showed her date of birth as March 10, 1950. THE Income-tax Officer, therefore, considered that Halima Begum had not attained the age of majority on September 3, 1964, even on the basis of the birth extract of the Madras Corporation. THEreafter, the assessee filed another return on March 2, 1966, with a declaration bearing the same date in Form 12 for the continuation of the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1965-66 under Section 184(7) of the Act. In this return, as against the name of Halima Begum in the column " Name of each partner " in Part III of the form, the following words are added : "minor admitted to the benefits of partnership". Otherwise, the particulars furnished in the return filed on July 29, 1965, and the one filed on March 2, 1966, are identical. THE Income-tax Officer ignored the declaration in Form 12 filed on March 2, 1966, and held that the declaration was not filed along with the return dated July 29, 1965, and that, therefore, there was no continuation of the registration under Section 184(7). He, accordingly, assessed the firm as an unregistered partnership. On a further appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view that the benefit of registration was rightly refused by the Income-tax Officer.

(2.) THE contention of the assessee before the, Tribunal was that since the assessee had filed a declaration in Form 12 along with the return submitted on March 2, 1966, it shall be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 184(7) and that it was entitled to file a revised return as the original return was defective, in that Halima Begum was not shown as a minor. THE Tribunal held that the original return filed on July 29, 1965, was a valid return and contained all the particulars required and the omission to include the description " Minor admitted to the benefits of partnership " against the name of Halima Begum in the return did not make the return in any way defective and, therefore, the return filed on March 2, 1966, could not be termed a revised return. Since the declaration required under Section 184(7) was not filed along with the return of July 29, 1965, the assessee was not entitled to the benefits of continuation of the registration for the assessment year 1965-66, At the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred :