SHYAM SUNDER MAHESH KUMAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
[Citation -1985-LL-0130-3]

Citation 1985-LL-0130-3
Appellant Name SHYAM SUNDER MAHESH KUMAR
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/01/1985
Assessment Year 1978-79
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags form no. 12
Bot Summary: The only contention in this appeal is that the authorities below should have held the delay in filing Form No. 11 for registration as explained due to reasonable cause. Two lady partners retired and the firm under consideration was reconstituted with three male partners. The assessee had filed under a misunderstanding Form No. 11, they filed Form No. 11 their own, though after a lapse of a few months only. Form No. 12 was filed within time and it was the duty of the department to have pointed out to the assessee to correct the mistake and file the application for registration on correct form viz. Provisions of s. 185(2) clearly mention as under: Where the ITO considers that the application for registration is not in order, he shall intimate the defect to the firm and give it an opportunity to rectify the defect in the application within a period of one month from the date of such intimation; and if the defect is not rectified within that period, the ITO shall by order in writing, reject the application. No such opportunity was given by the ITO. The assessee, themselves filed the correct application later on. We have no hesitation in these circumstances, in coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the delay and even otherwise under s. 185(2) the assessee was entitled to a notice from the ITO which the ITO did not send for removal of the defect in the form of petition.


only contention in this appeal is that authorities below should have held delay in filing Form No. 11 for registration as explained due to reasonable cause. It was stated that delay occurred due to fact that grand father of two partners and grand uncle of third partner suffered serious heart attack while in Ayodhya and all three partners had to rush there to look after him. old man Shri Kishanlal Banka ultimately died after ailment of several months. Late Shri Kishanlal Banka suffered heart attack near about close of accounting year and his serious ailment upset all partners who rushed to Ayodhya to see him and to look after him. He had to be kept in bed rest and partners had to be on his bed side to look after him. firm underwent serious financial crisis with result that business had to be closed down. Earlier, there were three partners in this firm. Two lady partners retired and firm under consideration was reconstituted with three male partners. All three male partners were perturbed due to serious ailment of grant father/grand uncle. There was financial crisis and confusion. It was due to this reason that there was delay in filing From No. 12 and even in time and when they realised that correct form was Form No. 11. Moreover, assessee had filed under misunderstanding Form No. 11, they filed Form No. 11 their own, though after lapse of few months only. It is argued that delay was due to sufficient cause and should have been condoned. departmental representative argued that there was no reasonable/sufficient cause and delay should not be condoned. We have considered facts and rival arguments. contention of assessee stands proved by fact that old man had died after ailment of several months. firm was closed as there was financial crisis arising due to heart attack of old man. Moreover, Form No. 12 was filed within time and it was duty of department to have pointed out to assessee to correct mistake and file application for registration on correct form viz., Form No. 11. This was not done. firm was otherwise genuine. Provisions of s. 185(2) clearly mention as under: "(2) Where ITO considers that application for registration is not in order, he shall intimate defect to firm and give it opportunity to rectify defect in application within period of one month from date of such intimation; and if defect is not rectified within that period, ITO shall by order in writing, reject application." Thus, according to provisions of s. 185, if ITO considers that application for registration is not in order he shall intimate defect to firm and give it opportunity to rectify defects in application. No such opportunity was given by ITO. assessee, themselves filed correct application later on. We have no hesitation in these circumstances, in coming to conclusion that there was sufficient cause for delay and even otherwise under s. 185(2) assessee was entitled to notice from ITO which ITO did not send for removal of defect in form of petition. appeal of assessee is allowed. *** SHYAM SUNDER MAHESH KUMAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Report Error