S B GOWDIAH AND SONS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(IT)-1994-10-8
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 03,1994

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.V. Balasubramanyam, Judicial Member - (1.) THE question of granting registration to .the assessee (firm) is the subject-matter of this appeal. THE assessment year is 1987-88. THE assessee is a firm which, at the relevant time, consisted of two partners. THE business of the assessee was taking excise contracts. It was also running an oil mill and a petrol pump. During the previous year there was no income from petrol pump and, it appears, it was not functioning. So also the oil mill.
(2.) The assessee had done toddy business in the districts of Gulbarga and Mysore during the year of account. The income earned from that business had been offered to tax. The Assessing Officer made an assessment under Section 143(3) in which he came to make additions. The assessee had filed a return in the status of firm and Form No. 12 had been filed. The firm had been constituted in 1971 and registration was being granted from year to year. Therefore, Form No. 12 was filed for continuation of registration and there was no change in the constitution. The assessment was made in the status of URF. The Assessing Officer passed a separate order declining registration for this year. The assessee had appealed from that order to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There was also a quantum appeal filed by the assessee. Both the appeals were conjoined and a single order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld in regard to status. The instant appeal is one directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) affirming the status of URF.
(3.) THE order of the primary authority purports to be one passed under Section 185(1)(b). Section 185 applies to a case where registration has to be granted at the inception. Here, the assessee was a firm constituted way back in 1971, and being continued from year to year. THEre was no change in the constitution during the year of account. This was a case of continuation of registration and, therefore, Form No. 12 was filed by the assessee. Though the order of the Assessing Officer says that it was passed under Section 185(1)(b), the discussion made in the order goes to show that he was not granting registration for this year for a particular reason. With regard to the validity of the reason, we will take up that point at a later stage. For the present, we may point out that a firm which had been granted registration for any assessment year shall have the effect for every subsequent year unless there is a case for application of the proviso mentioned in Section 184(7). THE assessee had met the requirement of filing Form No. 12 so there was no procedural lapse.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.