Continuance of firm registration cannot be refused for absence of a former partner's signature on Form No. 12.

Continuance of firm registration under the Income-tax Act could not be refused merely because a former partner, who had already ceased to be a partner before Form No. 12 was filed, did not sign the declaration. The declaration had to be furnished by the firm as constituted on the relevant date, namely the subsisting partners whose rights were affected by non-continuance of registration. As the application was signed by the continuing partners, the omission of the former partner's signature was not material. Refusal on that ground was unjustified, and continuation of registration was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether continuation of registration of the firm could be refused under the second proviso to section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because a former partner who had ceased to be a partner before filing Form No. 12 had not signed the declaration.

Analysis: The declaration for continuance of registration is required to be furnished by the firm as constituted at the time of filing the declaration, that is, by the subsisting partners whose rights are affected by non-continuance of registration. Since the partner in question had ceased to be a partner before the filing of Form No. 12, his signature was not necessary. The application had been signed by the partners who continued in the firm and constituted it on the relevant date.

Conclusion: Refusal of continuance of registration on the ground that the former partner did not sign Form No. 12 was unjustified, and the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration.

---