COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PANDEYA K H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference which pertains to the assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court :

(2.) IN this case, the assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1973-74, its previous year ended on November 5, 1972. For continuation Of its registration for the assessment year in question it filed a declaration in Form No. 12 as required under Section 184(7) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short, "the Act"), read with the rules on June 30, 1973. Since the said declaration was found not to be in order, therefore, another declaration was filed on September 26, 1975, much before the completion of the assessment. The explanation given for delayed filing of duly filled up and signed declaration was not accepted by the INcome-tax Officer and accordingly continuation of registration was refused by passing a composite order relating to assessment as well as the registration. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said order. The assessee having failed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it went in second appeal before the Tribunal and succeeded. The Tribunal, apart from granting relief in quantum, also directed continuation of registration.

(3.) THE above view of mine is in parity with the view taken by the other High Courts as well. I may refer to some of the decisions in this regard, namely, CIT v. Hansa Agencies [1980] 121 ITR 147 (Bom), CIT v. Rupa Traders [1979] 118 ITR 412 (Cal), Ansari Jewellers v. CIT [19871 167 ITR 380 (Raj), Bishambar Dayal Sriniwas v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 5 (Raj) and Patel and Co. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 568 (Guj).