| Case ID |
3199d942-faf1-4fd2-9418-9b38eab40d49 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE Nos. 85, 86, 88 AND 89 OF 1974 |
| Decision Date |
May 22, 1979 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that an appeal against the Income Tax Officer's order refusing to renew registration of a firm under Section 184(7) was maintainable. The court highlighted that if the ITO is satisfied that a genuine firm exists during the previous year, he must register it. If a firm is already registered for an assessment year, it does not need to reapply for subsequent years unless there has been a change in its constitution. The court emphasized the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Income Tax Act and the binding nature of circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR). The Tribunal's directive to the ITO to recognize the firm as registered was partly upheld but also criticized for not adhering to necessary formalities. |
| Summary |
This case addresses the procedural nuances surrounding the registration of firms under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the implications of Section 184(7) concerning the continuation of registration for firms. The judgment clarified that if a firm has been registered for a previous assessment year, it automatically qualifies for registration in subsequent years, provided there are no changes in the firm's constitution. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in the Act and the binding nature of CBR circulars on tax officers. The decision underscores the necessity for tax officials to grant firms the benefit of registration, fostering compliance and fairness in tax administration. This ruling is significant for firms navigating the complexities of tax registration and compliance, ensuring that procedural fairness prevails in administrative decisions. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Rajendra Nath Mittal,
J.V. Gupta
|
| Lawyers |
D.N. Awasthy,
B.K. Jhingan,
B.S. Gupta,
C.R. Dhayia,
A.N. Mittal,
Viney Mittal
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Mothooram Premchand
|
| Citations |
1980 SLD 619,
(1980) 121 ITR 59
|
| Other Citations |
Sir Hukumchand & Mannalal Co. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 99 (SC),
Sant Lal Kashmiri Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 76 (Delhi),
Addl. CIT v. Chekka Ayyanna [1977] 106 ITR 313 (AP),
Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal v. Addl. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 854 (All.),
Sandersons & Morgans v. ITO [1973] 87 ITR 270 (Cal.),
Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
184,
185
|