Continuance of firm registration requires strict compliance with both the return filing and prescribed declaration requirements.

Continuance of firm registration under the Income-tax Act depended on compliance with both statutory conditions: filing the return of income under section 139(2) and furnishing the prescribed declaration in Form No. 12 under section 184(7). The declaration was mandatory and renewal was not automatic, while the return filing requirement was equally obligatory. The fact that one document could be filed before the other did not excuse non-compliance with either condition. Because the firm failed to satisfy both requirements, it was disentitled to continuance of registration and refusal of renewal was , as stated in the source text.

---

---

Issues: Whether a firm could be allowed continuance of registration for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 when it had not filed the return of income under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had also not filed the declaration in Form No. 12 required by section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required compliance with both conditions for renewal of registration. The declaration in the prescribed form was mandatory, and renewal was not automatic. The filing of the return of income was equally obligatory. The provision did not permit the omission of both requirements merely because the declaration could be filed before the return in the relevant years. The assessee's failure to comply with either requirement disentitled the firm to continuance of registration.

Conclusion: The firm was not entitled to continuance of registration, and the refusal of renewal was correct.

Ratio Decidendi: Where section 184(7) requires both a prescribed declaration and a return of income, continuance of registration cannot be granted unless both statutory conditions are satisfied; renewal is not automatic.

---