C.I.T. ASR. vs. M/S HYPRES CASTING & ALLOYS ASR.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/115/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034914199622 November 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Dy.CIT(A) condoning the delay in filing Form No.12 and allowing the renewal of registration. The reasoning was that the Dy.CIT(A) and the Tribunal had found valid reasons for accepting the assessee's explanation for the delay. The revenue's counsel could not point out any infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities that would render them perverse. The Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Ram Kishan Tapade & Co. (1993) 202 ITR 716. The question of law was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Hypress Casting & Alloys, Amritsar, sought renewal of its registration for the assessment year 1990-91. The Assessing Officer denied the continuation of registration, treating the firm as unregistered, due to a perceived default in filing Form No.12. The assessee claimed to have filed Form No.12 for continuation, and when a copy was not found on record, submitted a duplicate before the Assessing Officer. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Dy.CIT(A)] condoned the delay in filing Form No.12, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and the firm's genuineness undisputed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Dy.CIT(A)'s order. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar (revenue) referred a question of law to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Dy.CIT(A) condoning the delay in filing Form No.12 and allowing the renewal of registration, particularly when it was not asked for and no declaration under section 184(7) was filed within the time allowed by sub-section 1 of Section 139? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the actions of the assessee in submitting a duplicate Form No.12 and the Dy.CIT(A)'s acceptance of their explanation suggest an argument for condonation of delay based on reasonable cause and the genuineness of the firm. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the renewal of registration should not have been allowed, particularly as no declaration under Section 184(7) was filed within the time prescribed by Section 139(1), and the delay in filing Form No.12 should not have been condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 184(7),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No.115 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 115 of 1996 Date of decision:22.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

....Petitioner versus M/s. Hypress Casting & Alloys, Amritsar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue. JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 27.7.1995 in ITA No.774/ASR/1994, for the assessment year 1990-91:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Dy.CIT(A) condoning the delay in filing Form No.12 and allowing the renewal of registration particularly when it was not asked for and no declaration under section 184(7) was filed within the time allowed by sub-section 1 of Section 139?” The assessee claimed to have filed Form No.12 for continuation of registration. However, when confronted with the fact that a copy thereof was not on record, the assessee submitted a duplicate copy thereof before the assessment. However, the Assessing Officer treating this to be a default, denied] continuation of registration of the firm and status of the assessee was taken to be that of unregistered firm. The appellate authority finding the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable and there being no dispute about the genuineness of the firm, condoned the delay in filing of Form No.12. The Tribunal upheld the said view, following decision of the

ITR No.115 of 1996 2 Bombay High Court in CIT v. Ram Kishan Tapade & Co. (1993) 202 ITR 716. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal in the present case held that there were valid reasons for accepting the explanation of the assessee even if the filing of Form No.12 is considered to be delayed. Learned counsel for the revenue could not point out any infirmity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, which could enable this Court to hold the findings recorded by the Tribunal to be perverse. Accordingly, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 22, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →