TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (7) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee-firm consisting of two partners, namely, Rameshwar Nath and Mohan Lal, came into existence on 1st April, 1954. It was duly registered under section 26A of the Act of 1922 for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57. With effect from 1st April, 1956, a change came about in the constitution of the firm. Mohan Lal, one of the partners, who had an eight-annas share, incorporated his brother, Brijmohan Lal, as an additional partner in the firm. Thereafter Mohan Lal and Brihmohan Lal each has a four annas share in the firm. The partners applied for registration by an application made on 26th December, 1959, for the assessment year 1959-60. The Income-tax Officer held that this was the first application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the firm had made out a case for the condonation of the delay, and the Income-tax Officer should have condoned the delay and granted registration. On these findings, the appeal was allowed, and it was directed that the assessee-firm will be allowed registration with all the consequent benefits thereunder. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the question mentioned above for our opinion. After the dismissal of the application under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Commissioner moved another application before the Tribunal, praying that question No. 2 mentioned in the earlier application also should be referred to the High Court. The Tribunal had in its original order of reference stated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanation was rejected, because there was no material in support of it. Before the Tribunal, the assessee-firm filed an affidavit of Ram Bharose Lal, the accountant. This fact is mentioned in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that in this particular case, the firm was otherwise genuine and no other defects either in the constitution of the firm or regarding the form of registration, etc., were pointed out by the departmental authorities. It held that the delay was liable to be condoned. Reading the order of the Tribunal as a whole, it is apparent that the Tribunal was aware of the affidavit filed in support of the explanation, and, in the light of other facts mentioned by it, it believed the explanation, and held that the dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e section 5, Limitation Act. It was urged on behalf of the revenue that the assessee had made no application for the condonation of the delay and had not made any such prayer even in the application for registration. That is true. But neither the Income-tax Act nor the Rules expressly require a separate written application or a written prayer for condonation of delay in making an application for registration. It was also submitted that the Tribunal having expressed its opinion on the main question that the firm was not a new firm and the application for registration was not the first application, and so, was not governed by any period of limitation, was influenced by this finding while deciding the question whether the assessee had su....