TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court validates assessee-firm's registration appeal under Income-tax Act, emphasizing procedural errors.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar Versus Amar Singh Gowamal And Sons</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the refusal of registration to an assessee-firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court ... Registration - firm - assessee-firm was registered in 1945 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The registration was up to the assessment year 1961-62. There was a change in the constitution of the firm on the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 on November 8, 1961 - held that continuation of registration under 1961 consequent to filing Form No. 11A, is valid. Issues:1. Validity of the application for registration made in Form No. 11A on September 29, 1962.2. Interpretation of the provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding registration and renewal of firm.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Patna regarding the refusal of registration to an assessee-firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm was registered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 until the assessment year 1961-62 when a change in the firm's constitution occurred on November 8, 1961. The firm applied for registration under the Act in Form No. 11A on September 29, 1962, which was refused by the Income-tax Officer under section 184(7) of the Act. The Tribunal and the High Court were involved in subsequent decisions. The High Court held that the application filed in 1962 was valid as it was for a firm in existence throughout the previous year, as required by rule 22(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.The High Court emphasized the differences in the registration renewal process between the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act. Under the 1922 Act, renewal meant annual registration, while under the 1961 Act, registration granted once continued for subsequent years unless there was a change in the firm's constitution. The Court clarified that registration under the 1922 Act did not automatically extend to the assessment year 1962-63 under the 1961 Act. The application for registration under the 1961 Act had to be made in accordance with section 184(1) and noted under section 185(4) of the Act.The Supreme Court analyzed the procedural requirements for registration under both Acts. It noted that under the 1961 Act, registration once granted continued for subsequent years if certain conditions were met, as stipulated in section 184(7). The Court agreed with the High Court's decision that the application filed in 1962 was valid under the 1961 Act. It further highlighted that the Income-tax Officer should have given the firm an opportunity to rectify any alleged defects in the application before rejecting it, as mandated by section 185(2) of the Act.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the rejection of the application was invalid due to the Income-tax Officer's failure to provide the firm with an opportunity to address any deficiencies. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded since the other party was not represented during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
