ALANKAR JEWELLERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders contained in annexures 2 and 3. By virtue of the order dated February 28, 1973 (annexure 2), the ITO refused to grant registration to the firm. In revision, the Commissioner upheld the order of the ITO by his order dated January 30, 1975, as contained in annexure 3. THEse two orders have been challenged by the petitioner-firm in the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1971-72 under Section 184(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act of 1961") in Forms 11 and 11A. THE application was filed on 30th September, 1970. It was also signed by all the partners. THE application was not accompanied with the original deed of partnership. It was also not accompanied with the certified copy of the partnership deed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the I.T. authorities contends that the word "application" occurring in Section 185(2) of the Act of 1961 means the application form and not the documents enclosed thereto. If the contention of learned counsel for the revenue is correct, then instead of "application" the words "application form" would have been mentioned in Section 185(2) of Act of 1961. Hence, I am unable to accept this contention. The application for registration is filed under Section 184(1) of the Act of 1961, read with rule 22 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Sub-section (1) of Section 184 provides that the application shall be accompanied with the original partnership deed. It also provides that the application shall be made in the prescribed form and shall contain the prescribed particulars. In my opinion, the word "application." occurring in Section 185(2) of the Act of 1961 includes the documents which are required to be enclosed thereto. The partnership deed, which shall accompany the application for registration, is part of the application. This view is also supported by a Division Bench decision of this court in Ganga Motor Service v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 132 (Pat). In this view of the matter, I hold that the ITO erred in law in not issuing a notice under Section 185(2) of the I.T. Act of 1961.