COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KHEMANI CHAMBERS

ITR/202/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011876198428 April 1999Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though profits were not credited to the accounts of the partners during the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1975. The Court reasoned that Section 184 of the Act and Rule 22 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, do not mandate the division or crediting of profits to partners' accounts before submitting Form No. 11, especially when the application is made before the end of the previous year. Clause 4 of Form No. 11 itself envisages two possibilities: either profits have been divided/credited, or they 'will be' divided/credited. This flexibility is logical because the exact profit amount is often ascertainable only after the previous year concludes. Therefore, the failure to credit profits during the previous year, when the application was filed before its closure, is not a bar to registration. The question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning the registration of the assessee, Khemani Chambers, a partnership firm. The firm applied for registration for Assessment Year 1975-76, with the previous year ending on March 31, 1975. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the application on multiple grounds, including that two partners were nominees of others, the declaration in Form No. 11 was incorrect, and crucially, that profits for the previous year were not credited to the partners' accounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed the appeal and granted registration. The Tribunal, after a difference of opinion between its members, referred the matter to a third member who agreed with granting registration. The High Court is now considering the specific issue of whether the failure to credit profits during the previous year disentitles the firm to registration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that profits were not credited during the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1975? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's decision, which the High Court is reviewing, implies that the failure to credit profits during the previous year should not prevent registration. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, has presented the question for reference, implying that the non-crediting of profits during the previous year is a valid ground for rejecting the firm's registration. The AO's initial rejection was based on this ground, among others. The Revenue likely argues that clause 4 of Form No. 11 requires certification of profit division or credit, and its absence is a violation of the statutory requirements for registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 184,Section 256(1),Section 255(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 202 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? Yes

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No ------

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 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 184 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →