GREENFIELDS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of eight partners. It started business on 23-6-1948, and closed its accounts for the first time on 31-5-1949. The assessee applied for registration of the firm under Section 26A of the INdian INcome-tax Act on the 14th April, 1951. The INcome-tax Officer granted registration of the firm on 29-9-1954. On 16-11-1954, the assessee applied for the renewal of the registration in respect of the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. With regard to the assessment year 1951-52 the application for renewal of registration was rejected by the INcome-tax Officer on the ground that it was much belated. The INcome-tax Officer also noticed another serious defect in the application for renewal.

(2.) AT the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act:

(3.) I shall, however, assume in favour of the assessee that the old Rule 6 of the Income-tax Act applied to this case and the application for renewal of registration made on the 16th November, 1954, was not barred by limitation. Even upon that assumption I think that the renewal of the registration could not have been granted to the assessee because the application was not signed personally by one of the partners, namely, Bahuria Jasopat Kuer, who. owned 2 annas share in the partnership. The application has been signed by Radha Prasad Sinha as Mukhtaram of Bahuria Jasopat Kuer. Rule 6 requires that the application "shall be signed personally by all the partners of the firm", or, where the application is made after dissolution of the firm, by all partners in the firm immediately before dissolution and by the legal representative of any such person who is deceased, and accompanied by a certificate in the form set out in the rule.