Firm registration renewal after a partner's death: discretionary refusal upheld where the constitution statement was factually incorrect.

Renewal of firm registration after the death of a partner required a truthful statement of unchanged constitution; a false declaration made the application defective. Under the relevant rule, the Assistant Commissioner could not register the firm himself, but only allow presentation of the application to the Income-tax Officer and thereby condone delay. That permission was discretionary, and no legal provision was shown to restrict the discretion in the assessee's favour. The reasons recorded for refusal were held cogent and convincing, and the refusal was not shown to be perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner was right in refusing to register the firm.

Analysis: The application for renewal of registration was made after the death of one of the partners, and the statement that the constitution of the firm remained unchanged was factually incorrect. Under the relevant rule, the Assistant Commissioner had no power to register the firm himself; he could only permit the application to be presented to the Income-tax Officer and thereby condone the delay. The power was discretionary, and the Court found no legal provision controlling that discretion in the assessee's favour. On examination of the order, the reasons recorded for refusing permission were found to be cogent and convincing, and the refusal was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner was right in refusing to register the firm, and the question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of Revenue.

---