Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Waryam Singh and Sons - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 131 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1982]136ITR92(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 139(1), 139(2) and 184(7); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1970
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentWaryam Singh and Sons
Appellant Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.K. Jhingan, Advs.
Respondent Advocate S.S. Mahajan, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was..........could not visualize, before the enforcement of the amendment act, that he was required to submit the form, for obtaining a continuation of the registration, before the expiry of the period for filing the return under section 139(1) of the act. soon after the amendment was enforced with effect from april 1, 1971, the assessee submitted the form on april 19, 1971. in such circumstances, a continuation of the registration could not be denied to the assessee-firm on the basis of the amendment of section 184(7) of the act and the tribunal rightly held that the said provision was not applicable in the present case. the question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Judgment:

S.P. Goyal, J.

1. The assessee submitted on April 19, 1971, a declaration in Form No. 12, for obtaining a continuation of its registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), along with his return for the assessment year 1970-71. The ITO declined the continuation of registration on the ground that the Form should have been submitted on or before June 30, 1970, that is, before the expiry of the period for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee moved an application under Section 154 of the Act for a rectification of the order contending that the amendment to Section 184(7), under which he was required to file the declaration before the expiry of the period for filing the return under Section 139 (1) and (2), came into force with effect from April 1, 1971, and as such it was not applicable to the assessment year 1970-71. The ITO rejected this contention but it was upheld by the AAC and a direction was issued to allow the registration to be continued. The view of the appellate authority was confirmed on appeal by the Tribunal. But, on the asking of the revenue, the following question was referred to this court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provisions of Section 184(7) as amended by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1970, were not applicable in this case?'.

2. The learned counsel for the revenue has challenged the correctness of the view of the Tribunal on the ground that the amendment being of a procedural nature would have retrospective effect. The argument is wholly misconceived because the amendment was expressly made applicable with effect, from April 1, 1971. That apart, the assessee could not visualize, before the enforcement of the Amendment Act, that he was required to submit the form, for obtaining a continuation of the registration, before the expiry of the period for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Soon after the amendment was enforced with effect from April 1, 1971, the assessee submitted the Form on April 19, 1971. In such circumstances, a continuation of the registration could not be denied to the assessee-firm on the basis of the amendment of Section 184(7) of the Act and the Tribunal rightly held that the said provision was not applicable in the present case. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //