Pathak, J. - (1.) MESSRS. Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal, the first petitioner, is a partnership firm. It was registered under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65. When filing its return for the assessment year 1965-66, the petitioner-firm submitted a declaration, purporting to be in Form No. XII, as required by Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the purpose of continuing the benefit of registration for that year also. It appears that the declaration form should have been signed, among others, by Arun Kumar, but it was signed instead by Ashok Kumar. On August 31, 1967, the Income-tax Officer made an order holding that because, of this error the declaration was not in the form prescribed by the rules and directing :
(2.) " The registration oi the firm granted in the assessment year 1964-65 is not allowed to be continued for the assessment year 1965-66 and the firm is treated as unregistered for the purpose of tax." The petitioner-firm filed an appeal against that order, and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on December 15, 1967, on the ground that it did not lie. The petitioner-firm then applied in revision, and the revision application has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner oi Income-tax by his order dated July 23, 1970, in which he has endorsed the view that the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable. The petitioners pray for reliei under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was maintainable, and the decision of the revenue authorities to the contrary is erroneous. To appreciate the contention it is necessary, we think, to examine the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to registration of firms.
(3.) SECTIONS 184 and 185 of the Act contemplate, an application for registration to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of the firm, the consideration of the application by the Income-tax Officer and upon his being satisfied of the existence of a genuine firm during the previous year with the constitution specified in the instrument of partnership an order registering the firm for the assessment year. If he is not so satisfied, the Income-tax Officer is empowered to pass an order refusing to register a firm. Section 184(7) provides that: " (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 partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership on the basis of which the registration was granted ; and (ii) the firm furnishes, along with its return of income for the assessment year concerned, a declaration to that effect, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner." In case a change has taken place in the previous year in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners, the firm must apply for fresh registration for the assessment year concerned.;