COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR, PATNA vs. AMAR SINGH GOWAMAL & SONS, JHARIA, DHANBAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1912/1974Supreme Court[1986] 3 S.C.R. 30817 July 1986Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI COMMISSIONER OF7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent-assessee firm was registered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, until assessment year 1961-62. On November 8, 1961, the last day of the previous year for assessment year 1962-63, the firm's constitution changed, with a new partnership instrument effective from November 9, 1961. On September 29, 1962, the assessee applied for registration under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) refused registration, citing Section 184(7) of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the ITO's order. The High Court, on reference, held the application valid under Rule 22(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, as it pertained to the firm in existence throughout the previous year relevant to the first assessment under the 1961 Act.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its finding that the application filed in Form II-A was good and valid. The Court reasoned that the registration granted under the 1922 Act did not automatically continue for the assessment year 1962-63, which fell under the 1961 Act. For the assessment year 1962-63, a fresh application for registration under Section 184(1) of the 1961 Act was required. The application filed on September 29, 1962, was for the registration of the firm as constituted throughout the previous year relevant to the first assessment under the 1961 Act, which complied with Rule 22(4)(ii). The Court noted that Section 184(7) would apply to subsequent assessment years (e.g., 1963-64), not the initial year under the new Act. Furthermore, the Court observed that even if there were defects in the application, the ITO should have provided an opportunity to the firm under Section 185(2) before rejecting it, which was not done. Therefore, the rejection was invalid. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the application for registration made in Form II-A on September 29, 1962, was validly refused by the Income Tax Officer, considering the change in the firm's constitution and the applicability of Section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee contended that the application was made in accordance with Rule 22(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, as it applied to the firm existing throughout the previous year relevant to the first assessment under the 1961 Act, and therefore, it was a good and valid application. The revenue, through the ITO and ITAT, argued that the application was invalid due to the change in the firm's constitution and the provisions of Section 184(7) of the Act, implying it was a renewal issue rather than a fresh registration. The High Court considered the distinction between the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act regarding registration and renewal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 184,Section 26A,Section 185,Section 256(1),Section 297(2)(k)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR, PATNA y v. AMAR SINGH GOWAMAL & SONS, JHARIA, DHANBAD B JULY 17, 1986. [R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] } Income Tax Act 1961, s.184/26A-Registration of firm-Regis- ( tration-Whether ensures for every subsequent year. ' c -- The respondent-assessee firm was registered in 1945 under the ( Indian Income Tax, 1922. The registration was up to the assessment year 1961..(i2. On 8th November, 1961, the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, there was a cliange in the D constitution of the firm. From November 9, 1961, a new btstrument of partnership came into existence. On September 29, 1962 the respon- dent-assessee firm applied for registration in Form UA under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer refused registration on the ground that the case fell under section 184(7) of the Act. The Tri- bunal upheld the order of the Income Tax Officer. E The High Court in a reference made by the Tribunal under Sec- lion 256(1) of the Act. held that on the date of application, the coustitu- lion of the assessee firm had changed and that the application was for registration of the firm w

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 184

All 47 judgments and leading authorities on Section 184 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →