Bona fide counsel mistake and genuine firm status justified condonation of delay and grant of registration.

A bona fide counsel's mistake, supported by the partner's statement, counsel's affidavit, and the assessee's consistent compliance history, was treated as a valid basis to condone delay in filing a registration application. The court accepted that the omission was not mala fide or a device to defeat limitation. Once delay was condoned, registration could not be refused on mere suspicion or on the theory that the firm must suffer for counsel's lapse. Because the firm was shown to be genuine and legally existing, the appellate authorities' direction to grant registration was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the application for registration could be condoned on the basis of the explanation that the omission was caused by the counsel's bona fide lapse. (ii) Whether, on those facts, the firm was entitled to registration.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the application for registration could be condoned on the basis of the explanation that the omission was caused by the counsel's bona fide lapse.

Analysis: The delay question turned on whether the omission was a genuine and bona fide mistake rather than a device to evade limitation. The explanation was supported by the partner's statement and the counsel's affidavit, and the assessee's past conduct, good standing, consistent compliance, and absence of any prior default supported the conclusion that the lapse was not mala fide. In such circumstances, the factual finding that the counsel's omission was bona fide justified condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, on those facts, the firm was entitled to registration.

Analysis: Once the delay was validly condoned, the application for registration could not be rejected merely on suspicion or on the footing that the firm must suffer for the counsel's lapse. The firm was not shown to be bogus or without legal existence, it had a consistent registration record, and the relevant materials supported acceptance of the application. The appellate authorities therefore acted within their jurisdiction in directing registration.

Conclusion: The firm was entitled to registration and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding condonation of delay and the grant of registration to the firm, leaving the assessee successful on both questions.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide mistake of counsel, established on facts and supported by surrounding circumstances, is a valid ground for condoning delay, and once such delay is condoned, registration of a genuine firm cannot be refused on mere speculation.

---