TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (5) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e one of the partners signed on behalf of the other partners under specific authority and no opportunity having been given to remove the defects, if any, when admittedly the Income-tax Officer had knowledge of the fact prior to the assessment ? " The assessee-firm consisted of four partners, namely, Brij Rattan Lal, Bhoop Kishore, Ram Swarup and Jado Saran. The firm was initially registered under s. 185(1) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter 'referred to as " the Act ") for the assessment year 1964-65. The constitution of the firm remained unchanged till the assessment year 1968-69 to which this reference relates. For the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1968, but the firm was dissolved on January 31, 1968,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the view taken by the Commissioner. There is no dispute about the facts of the case. The application for renewal of registration was not personally signed by Jado Saran. He had, however, authorised his partner, Bhoop Kishore, to sign on his behalf. The ITO obviously felt satisfied about the genuineness of the firm and its constitution as specified in the instrument of partnership and, consequently, allowed renewal of registration. Rule 24 of the I.T. Rules prescribes that the declaration to be furnished under sub-s. (7) of s. 184 shall be in Form No. 12 and shall be verified in the maner concerned in accordance with sub-r. (5) of r. 22. Sub-r. (5) of r. 22 prescribed that the application shall be signed personally by all the partner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct the application for registration without affording an opportunity to the assessee. The question is whether the infirmity in the application in the present case was a defect which ought to have been allowed to be rectified by affording an opportunity to the assessee. Since the application was not personally signed by one of the partners of the firm, it could be treated to have been signed only by three of the partners constituting the firm. Suppose the application had initially been signed by only three partners, in such a case, the ITO was bound to afford an opportunity to the firm to have the application signed by the fourth partner also and the registration could not be refused without affording the assessee such an opportunity. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AAC. One of the questions was whether the appeal was competent. The AAC treating the order as one under subs. (1) of s. 185 accepted the appeal. The order of the ITO was set aside and he was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law. On appeal by the ITO, the Tribunal took the view that the order made by the ITO was under s. 184(7) and not one under s. 186(1). The Tribunal also held that the AAC was in error in holding that it was incumbent on the ITO to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before he passed the order and since no appeal lay against an order passed by the ITO under s. 184(7), the order of the AAC was set aside and that of the ITO restored. The High Court held that an appeal lay to the AAC fro....