COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. IMPERIAL TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), involves the following question of law :

(2.) THE facts and circumstances leading to the present reference may be set out in brief. THE assessee is a partnership firm During the previous year relating to the assessment year 1972-73, the accounting year ended on October 18, 1971. THE application for grant of registration in Form No. 11 was filed on September 18, 1972. THErefore, the application was out of time. THE assessee filed an application for condonation but, on the facts, the same was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay but still he directed grant of registration in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Murlidhar Jhatvar and Puma Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95. It was for the reason that the assessment of one of the partners of the assessee-firm, namely, Bali Devi had already been completed by the Income-tax Officer on November 22, 1972. According to the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner since one of the partners had already been assessed in respect of his share from the firm, it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to treat the firm as unregistered. On appeal by the Department, the Tribunal also took the same view.

(3.) I agree.