1989 (1) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n unregistered firm with the following observations : "The assessee has not filed any petition for extension of time for filing this application and has not shown any sufficient cause which prevented it from Ming the application in proper form in time." Thereafter, on December 4, 1976, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 11. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the belated application for condonation of delay and found that no sufficient cause was shown by the assessee and endorsed the order of the Income-tax Officer. However, on further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, it was held in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Raghunandan Pra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n made after the end of the previous year, if he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the end of the previous year. Therefore, it is clear that the limitation for Ming the application is still the last date of the previous year which in this case would be October 14, 1972, whereas the application in Form No. 11 for the purposes of registration was filed on May 5, 1973, that is, more than six months after the last date and was clearly time-barred. Every assessee is deemed to know the provision of law and ignorance of law is no excuse. Application for registration of a firm lies under section 184 of the Act and if that provision had been read, it would have been clear therefrom as to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Khalil Mohd. Farooq v. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 458 (All), a judgment by the same court was followed and Haji Mohd. Kalil Mohd. Farooq's case [1962] 46 ITR 458 (All) was dissented from in Pannalal Ramkumar's case [1970] 75 ITR 309 (Mad) and was not followed in Kalinga Saw Mills' case [1975] 99 ITR 102 (Orissa). We have to see which view is to prevail. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view of law taken by the Madras, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh High Courts is in consonance with the provisions of section 184(4) of the Act and also with the general principles of law which prevail in civil and criminal courts. Section 184(4) of the Act clearly provides the last date for filing of the application for registration, and o....