PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.P.Singh and S.K.Jha JJ.
Commissioner Of Income Tax
Versus
Sitaram Bhagwandas
TAX CASE No. 81 of 1971 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 14, 1975
INCOME TAX - Renewal of Registration - Declaration under Section 184(7) - Whether mandatory to be filed along with the return - Interpretation of 'along with its return of income' - Held, directory and not mandatory.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a registered firm, filed a return of income on February 11, 1963, but submitted a declaration under Section 184(7) for continuation of registration on November 27, 1966, after the assessment year. The Income-tax Officer treated the assessee as an unregistered firm and refused renewal due to the belated submission of the declaration. The assessee appealed, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that no appeal lay against the refusal. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the declaration could be filed before the assessment and that renewal could not be refused solely due to the late submission.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal's decision was upheld. The court held that the term 'along with its return of income' in Section 184(7) is directory and not mandatory. The assessee is required to file the declaration before the assessment is made, but it need not be submitted simultaneously with the return. This interpretation is supported by the legislative history of Section 184 and the fact that there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the declaration.
Issues: Whether the declaration under Section 184(7) must be filed along with the return of income to be effective.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'along with its return of income' in Section 184(7) as directory and not mandatory. The court reasoned that the purpose of the provision is to ensure that the Income-tax Officer has the declaration before making the assessment, and that a strict literal interpretation would lead to absurd results. The court also noted that there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the declaration, which suggests that the legislature did not intend for the requirement to be strictly enforced.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, holding that the Tribunal's order allowing the renewal of the assessee's registration was legal and proper.
S.K.JHA, J.
1. In this reference under sec. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the ITAT, Patna Bench, has submitted a statement of the case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:
"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Tribunal allowing registration of the firm is legal and proper?"
2. The assessee was a registered firm. For the assessment year 1962-63, it filed a return of its income on the 11th of February, 1963, but before the assessment was made, it submitted a declaration under sec. 184(7) of the Act on the 27th of November, 1966, for the continuation of the registration for the previous year. The Income-tax Officer assessed the assessee as an unregistered firm on the ground that the declaration under sec. 184(7) was filed late and not along with the return. Therefore, the final assessment of the assessee was made by the assessing officer by treating it as an unregistered firm and not allowing renewal to it on the belated submission of the declaration in due form. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who refused to interfere holding that no appeal lay before him against the order of refusal passed by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held that the word "status" did not cover this aspect of the matter and that, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of sec. 246 of the Act, the appeal before him could not be entertained. The assessee then preferred a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal while deciding in favour of the assessee held that the appeal was maintainable also in the matter concerning the status of the assessee and further that renewal could not be refused merely because the declaration in due form had not been literally submitted along with the return filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held:
"Therefore, even though the necessary declaration under sec. 184(7) was filed much after the filing of the return but before the assessment was taken up, it did not alter the position, in any way, of the firm from enjoying registration. As the effect of registration granted in the earlier year continued and the declaration was filed before the assessment was taken up, it would not change the position in any way. In this view of the matter, we hold that the firm should be assessed as a registered firm for the year under appeal."
3. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax thereafter, this reference under sec. 256(1) has been made.
4. I may state at the outset that the question whether the declaration furnished by the assessee was actually an application under sec. 184(1) of the Act or a declaration under sec. 184(7) was not canvassed before any of the income-tax authorities. Had it been an application for registration under sec. 184(1) of the Act, different considerations would arise and different results may have followed. But since the parties before the Tribunal have treated the case as being one of a declaration under sec. 184(7) of the Act and this reference has been made pursuant thereto, I refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the applicability of sec. 184(4) of the Act which prescribes the time limit for the filing of application for registration under sec. 184(1) of the Act. Such a question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal nor has the learned standing counsel for the revenue invited us to this aspect of the matter.
5. Learned standing counsel for the department has urged that the Tribunal has not taken a correct view of the true intent and purport of sub-section (7) of section 184 of the Act and the provisos thereto as it stood before the amendment of 1970, namely:
"184. (7) Where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year: Provided that (i) there is no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the
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.