The registration of a firm under the Partnership Act is effective from the date on which the statement is delivered to the Registrar under S. 58 of the Partnership Act, and not from the date on which the Registrar makes an entry in the Register of Firms under S. 59 of the Partnership Act.

( 1 ) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question to this Court under S. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922), for decision. "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the application under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act was filed out of time. "

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are correctly stated in the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal and are beyond dispute. The most important data for deciding the present case consists of various relevant facts and dates as follows: (1) 5-11-1954 - The firm of assessee namely Shri Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mill Contractors Co. , Angalur was constituted i. e. , came into existence. (2) 4-5-1955 - The date within which application should be filed by the assessee as an unregistered firm under Rule 2 (a) i. e. , within six months of the constitution of the firm.

( 3 ) 14-10-1955 - The assessee filed the application before Income-tax Officer for registration of the partnership under the Income-tax Act.

( 4 ) 20-10-1955 - The assessee filed before the Registrar of Firms a statement under S. 48 of the Partnership Act (Act No. IX of 1932 ). The Income-tax Officer, in his order dated 23-3-1961 on the application, for certain reasons, concluded that the application, for registration was sent to the Registrar only on 1-11-1955. That conclusion is wrong. For, the assessee filed a statement (certificate) from the Registrar of Partnerships that the statement of the assessee under S. 58 reached him on 20-10-1955 which is the correct date.

( 5 ) 26-10-1955 - The firm closed its books for profit and loss. This was the last date of the pervious year for the purpose or Rule 2.

( 6 ) 2-11-1955 - The Registrar of firms filed the statement of the assessee and made entries in the register of firms.

( 7 ) 23-3-1961 - The Income-tax Officer passed an order refusing to register the application for various reasons, one of which was that the application was not made in time.

( 8 ) 26-6-1961 - The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada dismissed appeal I. T. No. 33/61-62 filed by the assessee.

( 9 ) 12-3-1962 - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal I. T. No. 4598 of 1961-62 filed by the assessee. (3) Rule 2 lays down the time limit for filing application for registration under section 26-A of the Act. Section 26-A runs as follows:" (1) 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 purpose of this Act (2) The application shall be made by such person or persons and at such times and shall contain such particulars and shall be in such form, and be verified in such manner, as may be prescribed; and it shall be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer in such manner as may be prescribed. " (4) A contention was raised before the learned Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to the benefit laid down in Rule 2 (b ). The Tribunal rejected that contention. In its statement of the case, the learned Tribunal has stated the view which it took regarding that contention as follows:-"the contention on behalf of the assesse firm was that since it had made its application for registration under the Indian Partnership Act on 20-10-1955, which was before the end of the previous year the time limit (b) that is, before the end of previous year and accordingly the application was within time. The Tribunal repelled this contention and held the limitation is undoubtedly to be considered with reference to the application under section 26-A. If, therefore, the extended limitation as given in Rule 2 (b) is to be available, the condition that the firm is registered with the Registrar must be fulfilled when the application under S. 26-A is made. If limitation has already expired, can limitation be extended by reason of a subsequent event? We think not. It was held that the time l