SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, C.J.I., K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, Appellant v. M/s. Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mills Contractor Co., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 545 of 1967, D/-15-1-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. B. D Sharma and R. N Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Respondent.
Income-tax Act, 1922 - Section 66 (1), 26-A - Indian Partnership Act, 193 Section 58 and 59 - Partnership - Assessee - Income tax - Assessee firm was constituted under a creed of partnership dated - It was to come into existence with effect - Assessee filed an application under Section 26-A of Act for registration of firm for assessment year - Previous year of the firm was shown as year ending - This application was received the Income-tax Officer - Assessee filed before the Registrar of Firms a statement under Section 58 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Registrar of Firms filed statement of assessee and made entries in the register of firms - Income tax Officer passed an order refusing to register firm under Section 26-4 inter alia for reason that application had not been made in time - Whether on facts and in circumstances of case application under Section 26-A of Act was filed out of time – Held, High Court in judgment under appeal referred to statement extracted from report of Special Committee which had been appointed by Government of India to examine provisions of Bill before it came to be passed by Central Legislature as Partnership Act and reference was made in particular to statement relating to Sec. 58 corresponding to Section 59 of Partnership Act to effect that Registrar was a mere recording officer and that he had no discretion but to record entry in the register of firms – Court are unable to see how that statement can be taken into consideration for purpose of interpreting relevant provisions of Partnership Act – Court also cannot concur with other reasoning of High Court for coming to conclusion that partnership should be deemed to have been registered on date when application was presented and that requirement of Rule 2 (b) would be satisfied if it became registered under Partnership Act even after application was filed - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court arising out of a reference made under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act of the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the application under Section 26-A of the Act was filed out of time.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee firm was constituted under a creed of partnership dated October 6, 1955. It was to come into existence with effect from November 5, 1954. The assessee filed an application under Section 26-A of the Act for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1956-57. The previous year of the firm was shown as the year ending October 26, l955. This application was received by the Income-tax Officer on October 14, 1955. On October 20, 1955 the assessee filed before the Registrar of Firms a statement under Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. On November 2, 1955 the Registrar of Firms filed the statement of the assessee and made entries in the register of firms. On March 23, 1961 the income tax Officer passed an order refusing to register the firm under Section 26-4 inter alia for the reason that the application had not been made in time. The appeal taken to Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee failed. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On that a reference was sought and the High Court answered the question referred in favour of the assessee on the ground that the application had been filed in time.
3. Section 26-A of the Act provides that an application may be made to the Income tax Officer on behalf of any firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners for registration for the purposes of the Act. The application has to be made by such person or persons and at such time and has to contain such particulars etc., as may be prescribed. Rules 2 to 6 (b) of the Rules made under Section 59 of the Act deal with registration of firms. We are concerned with the following material portion of Rule 2
"Such application shall be ........made.......
(a) Where the firm is not registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (1X of 1932) or where the deed of Partnership is not registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), and the application for registration is being made for the first time under the Act,
(i) Within a period of six months of the constitution of the firm or before the end of the previous year of the firm whichever is earlier, if the firm was constituted in that previous year,
(ii) before the end of the previous year in any other case;
(b) Where the firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. (IX of 1932) or where the deed of partnership is registered under the Indian Registration Act, (XVI of 1908) before the end of the previous year of the firm..........",
Now it is common ground that the application for registration was not made within the period prescribed by Rule 2 (a). What has been urged throughout on behalf of the assessees is that the application to the Income tax Officer was governed by Rule 2 (b) and was in time as the firm should be deemed to have been registered not on the date on which it was actually registered by the Registrar of Firms but with effect from the date on which the application for registration was presented to the Registrar. In other words the firm should be considered to have been registered on October 20, 1955 on which date the statement under Section 58 of the Partnership Act was filed by the assessee before the Registrar of Firms:
4. The real question which has to be determined is whether the registration of a firm under the Partnership Act takes place with effect from the date on which the application for registration is made in accordance with Section 58 of that Act. Section 58 (1) provides that the registration of a firm m
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.