TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (11) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed along with the deed of partnership dated September 26, 1944. The application for registration in the year 1946-47 remained pending for several years. The application was ultimately dismissed on March 15, 1951. In the meanwhile, the firm filed two applications for renewal of registration for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The two applications for renewal of registration were filed on December 9, 1947, and July 12, 1948, respectively. Both the applications for renewal of registration were dismissed by the Income-tax Officer on various grounds. The decision of the Income-tax Officer was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal based its decision on the short g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and shall contain such particulars and shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer in such manner, as may be prescribed." It has to be noted that section 26A refers to registration of firms. There is no separate mention of renewal of registration. Presumably, registration in the first instance and renewal of registration are both governed by section 26A. Rules framed under the Act were amended in 1952. We are concerned with the rules before the amendment of 1952. Rule 2 dealt with applications for registration. Rule 3 laid down that the application referred to in rule 2 shall be made in the form annexed to rule 3. A form was prescribed in rule 3. Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instrument of partnership or certified copies of the instrument as required by the form given in rule 3. But we may point out that all, the time the original application for registration was pending before the Income-tax Officer; and the deed of partnership had been filed by the assessee with the application for registration. It is to be noted that the original application in the instant case remained undisposed of till the year 1951. When the firm applied for registration in the years 1947 and 1948, there was no order for registration in its favour. The question arises whether, under these circumstances, the application for renewal was competent. In Bela Singh Daulat Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax it was held by this court that, so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax Act, 1961, lays down the procedure for the disposal of an application for registration. Sub-section (2) of section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, states: " The Income-tax Officer shall not reject an application, for registration merely on the ground that the application is not in order, but shall intimate the defect to the firm and give it an opportunity to rectify the defect in the application within a period of one month from the date of such intimation." It is true that section 185(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not, in terms, apply to cases governed by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. But section 185(2) of the new Act recognises the broad principle that the Income-tax Officer has to consider the substance of the applicat....