BISHAMBAR DAYAL SRINIWAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference arises on the request of the assessee.

(2.) THE assessee-applicant is a firm. It carries on business. For the year 1970-71, it was granted registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It filed its declaration for continuation of registration in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 184 of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 on October 8, 1971. THE assessee filed an application for condonation of delay to the Income-tax Officer. It was submitted by the assessee that the delay was caused due to the wrong impression about the interpretation of the amended Section 184(7) of the Act. It was further submitted that it was a case of a genuine firm of more than 10 years' standing and a slight delay of seven days should be condoned. THE Income-tax Officer rejected the prayer of the assessee and declined to condone the delay and assessed the assessee as an unregistered firm. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Alwar Range, Alwar. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax condoned the delay and held that there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. He further directed the Income-tax Officer to allow continuation of the registration if the same is otherwise in order.

(3.) MR. Ranka has also cited before us the case of National Tractor Co. v. ITO [1983] 143 ITR 95 (P & H). In that case, the assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay on the ground that it had no knowledge about the amendment of the provisions of Section 184(7) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1971, but the Income-tax Officer declined to continue the registration. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the fact of declaration in Form No. 12 having been signed on September 3, 1971, was not determinative of the assessee's knowledge of the changed law requiring the filing of the declaration by September 30, 1971, even if the return of income was filed later, and that, therefore, the assessee's plea as to its bona fide belief that the declaration could be filed along with the return of income as under the law effective until March 13, 1971, could not be rejected. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground that since the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner itself was not competent, the appeal to the Tribunal was also not competent. A writ petition was preferred against the said order before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed and it was held that an appeal lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.