COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TRINITY TRADERS
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
T.U.MEHTA, J. -
(1.)THE question which arises to be considered in this reference is whether a declaration made under section 184(7) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, before the expiry of the accounting period is a valid declaration in law. This question arises in the context of the following facts.
(2.)THE respondent -assessee is a partnership firm. The question relates to the assessment of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1967 -68, the relevant accounting period being Samvat year 2022. It is an admitted position that the accounting period ended on 12th November, 1966.
For assessment year 1967 -68 the assessee filed his return on August 19, 1968, along with a declaration under section 184(7) of the Act. However, this declaration was not signed by two of its partners, namely, Sajanben Zaverilal and Divyakant Zaverilal. The said declaration was, therefore, defective. However, on April 16, 1969, the assessee filed a revised return along with the new declaration which was made on June 13, 1966, and signed by all the partners including the above referred two partners, Sajanben Zaverilal and Divyakant Zaverilal. It is this declaration which is the subject -matter of dispute in this reference. Along with this revised return and the new declaration dated June 13, 1966, the assessee submitted a forwarding letter stating that this declaration was not traceable at the time when the original return was filed. The Income -tax Officer concerned accepted this declaration dated June 13, 1966, and carried out the assessment of the assessee on the basis that it was a registered firm.
(3.)SUBSEQUENTLY , the Additional Commissioner of Income -tax called for and examined the record of the assessee. During the course of that examination he noted that the declaration dated June 13, 1966, which was filed by the assessee on April 16, 1969, contained some corrections showing that at two places the assessment year was changed from 1966 -67 to 1967 -68. However, at one place no such correction was made with the result that at that place the assessment year was shown as 1966 -67. The Additional Commissioner further found that this declaration was meant for the assessment year 1966 -67, but was utilised by the assessee for the assessment year 1967 -68 by making the above corrections. It is found that two of the partners of the assessee, whose names are already given above, had, by this time, approached the Additional Commissioner under section 264 of the Income -tax Act, 1961. They had made certain statements to the Commissioner, as a result of which the Commissioner's doubt as regards the declaration dated June 13, 1966, was strengthened.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.