Registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 required a fresh first-year application; old Act renewal did not automatically continue.

A firm registered under the repealed 1922 Act had to seek registration afresh for the first assessment year governed by the 1961 Act under section 184(1), with the registration fact recorded under section 185(4). Section 184(7) applies only where registration has already been granted under the 1961 Act and can then continue for later years if conditions are met; it does not automatically carry forward registration from the 1922 Act under section 297(2)(k). Because the firm's prior renewal under the old Act did not amount to a saving of registration for the new Act's first year, and the application followed a change in constitution and was filed after the close of the previous year, Form 11A was the proper form and the application was valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee-firm's application in Form 11A filed on 29 September 1962 for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a valid application for first registration, or whether the matter was governed by the continuance-of-registration scheme under section 184(7) so that refusal of registration was justified.

Analysis: The firm had been registered under the repealed 1922 Act and had obtained renewal up to assessment year 1961-62, but assessment year 1962-63 was the first year governed by the 1961 Act. The scheme of section 184 of the 1961 Act distinguishes between an application for registration of a firm and continuance of an already granted registration. For the first assessment year under the new Act, registration under that Act had to be sought in accordance with section 184(1), and the fact of registration had to be recorded under section 185(4). Section 184(7) operates only after registration is granted under the 1961 Act for an assessment year and then continues for later years if the statutory conditions are met. The earlier registration under the 1922 Act could not be treated as continuing registration for the first year under the 1961 Act by virtue of section 297(2)(k), because the prior renewal order was neither a recognition granted nor an order issued within the meaning of that saving clause. Since there had been a change in constitution and the application was made after the close of the previous year, Form 11A was the appropriate form under the rules and the application was not defective in substance.

Conclusion: The application in Form 11A was valid and was not liable to be refused; the answer to the referred question was in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

---