ARUN OIL MILL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made at the instance of the assessee against the order passed by the taxing authorities as well as the Tribunal refusing to grant registration to the firm.

(2.) ARUN Oil Mill, the assessee -firm was reconstituted by a deed dated November 16,1959. According to the partnership deed, there were seven partners and one minor one minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. One of the partners, Abhaykumar, was out of India and the partnership deed was signed on his behalf by Motichand, who was also a partner in the firm. The assessment year in question is 1961 -62 for which the corresponding previous year is S. Y. 2016 (accounting period ended on October 28, 1960). On September 12, 1960, an application for registration of the reconstituted firm was filed. This application was signed by all the partners, except Abhaykumar and the minor. On behalf of Abhaykumar, Motichand had signed the application as the person holding his general power -of -attorney. When the application for registration came up for hearing some time in the year 1965, this defect in the application came to the notice of the assessee -firm. Thereupon, on August 23, 1965, a fresh application was submitted by the firm, which was signed by Abhaykumar himself along with the other partners.

(3.) THE Tribunal pointed out that the defect in the original application was not a minor one and as the proper application signed by all the partners was filed only in the year 1965, the initial application, though defective, cannot be regarded as having been rectified with retrospective effect. It also declined to condone the delay on the ground that ignorance of law is no ground for excusing the delay. The Tribunal, accordingly, confirmed the orders of the taxing authorities refusing to grant registration to the firm.