SUBHKARAN AND SONS Vs. N A KAZI ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (hereinafter "the firm") has been at all relevant times carrying on business in textile goods, chemicals and yarn in Bombay. By a partnership deed dated January 1, 1971, one Subhkaran Jatia and Shivhari Jatia had agreed to carry on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s Subhkaran & Sons. The said Subhkaran Jatia and Shivhari Jatia admitted one Sunilkumar Jatia and one Anilkumar Jatia to the benefits of the partnership. By a partnership deed dated September 3, 1975, the firm was reconstituted as follows :

(2.) AS a result of this partnership deed dated September 3, 1975, Sunilkumar Jatia (minor), who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, was not continued to be given the said benefits and Anilkumar Jatia, who was a minor, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On November 4, 1975 (Kartik Sud 1, Samvat 2032), the partnership deed in question was signed by Subhkaran Jatia ... 25 per cent share Shivhari Jatia ... 25 per cent share Vinodkumar Jatia ... 25 per cent share and . . Anilkumar Jatia (minor) ... 25 per cent share the partners. Along therewith the partners also signed Form No. 11A, under the Rules framed under the IT Act, 1961, for the purpose of applying for registration of the firm for the asst. yr. 1977 78. The said partnership deed and the said Form No. 11A, both signed by the partners, were handed over to M/s G. T. Agarwal & Co., chartered accountants of the firm, for the, purpose of filing the same with the IT Department. The said chartered accountants, however, overlooked the matter and through oversight, the said Form No. 11A along with the copy of the partnership deed dated September 3, 1975, remained to be filed with the IT Department. The firm was not aware of this occurrence till when the present dispute arose.

(3.) BY his order dated March 19, 1980, the ITO, however, refused registration on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for not filing Form No.11A in time. Aggrieved by this refusal, the firm filed an application under S. 264 of the said Act to the CIT. The said application was, however, rejected on January 13, 1981. Hence, this petition.