An assessee who is prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the declaration for continuation of registration of a firm within the time limit provided by Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be granted an extension of time by the Income-tax Officer.

Chandrashekhar, J.

1. IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the INcome-tax Officer, B Ward, Moradabad, refusing to continue registration of the petitioner-firm for the assessment year 1971-72, and the order of the Commissioner of INcome-tax dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the order of the INcome-tax Officer.

2. CERTAIN material facts which are not in dispute may be stated at the outset. The petitioner-firm had been granted registration for the assessment year 1961-62 under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Thereafter, the registration of the firm was continued from year to year. For the assessment, year 1971-72, the petitioner filed its return of income on March 10, 1972. Along with the return it sent its declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of the registration of the firm, under Sub-section (7) of Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act ")- The Income-tax Officer in the course of his assessment order dated December 30, 1972, refused to continue the registration of the firm on the ground that such declaration was belated having been filed beyond the time allowed by Clause (ii) of the proviso to that sub-section. Against the aforesaid order of the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Moradabad, who dismissed it as not being maintainable. Then, against the aforesaid order of the Income-tax Officer the petitioner filed a revision petition to the Commissioner of Income-tax, who, by his order dated March 13, 1975, declined to interfere with the order of the Income-tax Officer and rejected the revision petition.

The petitioner's allegations in this petition are briefly these : On account of some difficulty with the accountant of its firm, the petitioner could not file its return of income within the time allowed by Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. It applied for extension of time till August 15, 1971, to file its return. The Income-tax Officer granted such extension up to August 15, 1971. On August 16, 1971, it (the petitioner) made another application in Form No. 6 requesting for extension of time up to March 31, 1972, to file the return. That application was handed over In the office of the Income-tax Officer which issued an acknowledgment to the petitioner for having received that application. The Income-tax Officer did not communicate to the petitioner his order on that application. On March 10, 1972, the petitioner filed its return of income for the year 1971-72, along with a declaration under Section 184(7) in Form No. 12 for continuation of registration of the firm.

3. IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner's averments that it gave an application for extension of time till August 16, 1971, that it had been granted such extension of time and that it again made another application on August 16, 1971, for further extension of time till March 31, 1972, have not been admitted. However, the fact of an acknowledgment having been issued to the petitioner by the office of the INcome-tax Officer on August 16, 1971, has not been disputed. But it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the application said to have been given by the petitioner on August 16, 1971, for extension of time, could not be traced in the records of the INcome-tax Officer and that it could also not be verified whether such an application had been made by the petitioner.

4. AT the hearing of this petition, the learned senior standing counsel for the income-tax department stated that the person who was the Income-tax Officer, B Ward, Moradabad, on August 16, 1971, has since died.

Shri K. B. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as the petitioner had made an application on August 16, 1971, for extension of time till March 31, 1972, for filing its return of income and did not receive any commu