1977 Supreme(Ker) 225
Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,G.BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR
OUSEPH - Appellant
Versus
DY.COMMR.OF AGRL.INCOMETAX - Respondent
Case No : I. T. R. No. 80, 81 of 1975 (Agrl. )
Decided On : 09/29/1977
Advocates Appeared :
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer; P.S. Narayanan; K.S. Menon; For Applicant Government Pleader; For Respondent
The rejection of registration must be supported by valid grounds as per the Act and Rules.
Headnote:
Registration - Agricultural Income-tax Act - S.27
Fact of the Case:
The Deputy Commissioner disallowed the registration of a firm for not keeping accounts and not specifying the share of profits as per the partnership deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the grounds for disallowance to be untenable and not supported by the Act or Rules.
Issues: 1. Entitlement for registration under S.27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. 2. Competency of the Deputy Commissioner to exercise suo motu powers of revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act only requires an application on behalf of the firm with specified individual shares of profits, and the rejection grounds were not justified.
Final Decision: Question 1 answered in favor of the assessee and against the Department. Question 2 answered against the assessee and in favor of the Department.
1. These two references, by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, North Zone, Kozhikode, are in respect of the same assessee for two different assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The questions of law referred for our determination are:
(1) Whether, on the fads and in the circumstances of the case the Deputy Commissioner was correct on holding that the firm was not entitled, for the registration under S.27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950;
and
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Deputy Commissioner was competent to exercise his suo motu powers of revision to set aside the finding of the officer that the requirements of S.27 have been satisfied by the Applicant.
The assessee applied for registration of a firm constituted by the deed of partnership dated 15 91966. The accounting period for the year during which the partner-ship was constituted was to run out on 30 6196. The registration was applied for under S.27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, which reads as follows:
"27. Procedure in registration of firms.
(1) Application may be made to the Agricultural 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 this Act and of any other enactment for the time being in force relating to agricultural income tax or supertax.
(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 Agricultural Income-tax Officer in such manner as may be prescribed."
The rules providing for particulars of the application and the manner of dealing with it are R.2,3 and 4 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951 R.2 of the Rules, in so far as that is material, reads:
"2. Any firm constituted under an Instrument of Partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners may, under the provisions of S.27 of the Agricultural Incometax Act, 1950 (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the Act) register with the Agricultural Income-tax Officer the particulars contained in the said Instrument on application made in this behalf.
(rest omitted).
2. In the light of the above provisions, registration of the firm was allowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, in exercise of bis suo motu powers of revision, under S.34 of the Act, disallowed registration of the firm on two grounds: (1) that no accounts had been kept by the firm; and (2) that the share of the profits shown in the application for registration did not correspond to the state of affairs disclosed by the partnership deed.
3. The first of these grounds is manifestly untenable. Not only is there no warrant for importing the requirement of the keeping of accounts by the firm or by the partnership into the provisions of the section or the terms of the Rules we have extracted above, but, judicial decisions are also against such a requirement being posited. It is enough to refer to the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Kurian and George v. Commr of Income-tax (1966 KLT. 771) rendered with reference to the analogous provisions
of the Indian Incometax Act, 1922.
4. In regard to the second ground given by the Deputy Commissioner, we have been taken carefully and elaborately through the provisions of the Act and the Rules. We have also been taken through the provisions of the deed of partnership, a copy of which is Appendix 3 of the statement of the case. Clause.4 and 6 of the deed are as follows:
"4. The Capital of the Partnership shall be Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) of which the amounts as shown below shall be contributed by each of the parties hereto within two weeks of the execution of this Deed
Table:#1
The balance shall be contributed by each of the parties as and when