MADHUR JALPAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T, Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Patna, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. As would appear from the statement of the case, as submitted by the Tribunal, the relevant facts are these. Up to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee was treated as a registered firm. For the assessment year 1971-72, a declaration in Form No. 12 as required under Section 184(7) of the Act was submitted on July 31, 1971, along with the return. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO observed that the assessee had not filed any application for extension of time for filing the return which was due on 30th June, 1971. Hence, the ITO took the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm. A copy of the order of the ITO has been marked annex. A forming part of the statement of the case.

(3.) IT is worthwhile to mention here that Section 2(31) of the Act defines merely a person as including, (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or body of individuals--whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial juridical person not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses. IT would thus be found that the definition of the term "person" is not exhaustive which is merely inclusive--not all pervasive. In this context, it may also be worthwhile to point out that the very initial part of Section 2 of the Act begins with a clause in the following language: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--"