TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (10) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous to the assessment year 1963-64. It had been registered as such under the relevant provisions of the Act. For the assessment year 1963-64 a declaration in Form No. 12 in accordance with section 184(7) of the Act had been filed for the purpose of continuation of registration as required by section 184(7) and the relevant Rules. But, the declaration in question had been signed, by only 4 of the 5 partners. According to the assessee, the partner, J. S. Venkatesh Rao, was absconding and, as such, his wife, Sharada Bai, had signed on his behalf. The Income-tax Officer refused to act on this declaration and extend the benefit of the continuation of registration to the assessee as envisaged in section 184(7) of the Act. The assessment was acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t provided for signature by all the partners. This differentiation made by the legislature was deliberate and requirement of signature by all the partners cannot be said to fall within the mandate of sub-section (7) of section 184. It was, therefore, concluded that any partner or person, who was authorised to act on behalf of the firm, could sign the declaration, and any such declaration would be sufficient compliance with the requirements of proviso (ii) to sub-section (7) of section 184. It would, therefore, follow that the provisions of rule 22(5), read with rule 24 of the Rules, were also fulfilled. The department went up in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench " B " in I.T.A. No. 10481 of 1964-65. The Tribunal allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorisation, any partner could so act. Therefore, it is only such " persons concerned " who will have to comply with the requirements of rule 22(5) as enjoined by rule 24 of the Rules. (2) While sub-sections (1) to (6) of section 184 of the Act provide for the making of an application for registration of a firm for the purpose of the Act, sub-section (7) of that section merely provides that where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year, provided the conditions specified therein are satisfied. It is, therefore, urged that the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 184 were intended to be less stringent than the provisions of section 184(3). which enjoins that an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... firm could sign the declaration is assumed to be right, such authorisation should necessarily be in favour of more than one person in order to satisfy the requirement of verification as enjoined in Form No. 12. Further, it follows that no single partner could act in order to make the declaration in accordance with Form No. 12. Therefore, any single person or partner authorised to act cannot satisfy the requirements of such verification. We cannot also accept the interpretation placed by Sri Bhat on the words " persons concerned " occurring in rule 24 of the Rules. Under rule 22(5) of the Rules, persons other than partners could also sign an application for registration of a firm for the purposes of the Act in certain circumstances specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerned with interpreting rule 4 of the Rules made by a notification under section 49A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The matter related to the relief to be granted in case of double taxation. Rule 4 requires that the application for refund of income-tax under the relevant rules shall be made in Form I appended to the Rules. A claim for relief by the assessee made by means of a letter was held to have satisfied the requirements of rule 4 on the ground that the prescription of the form of application under that rule was directory in nature. In the instant case, we are concerned with the defective nature of the declaration furnished for the purpose of the continuation of registration, the defect being the want of signature of one of the....