CIT V. JAYALAKSHMI RICE AND OIL MILLS CONTRACTOR CO.
| EQUIVALENT CITATION | AIR 1971 SC 1025 : (1971) 1 SCC 280 |
| BENCH | GROVER, A.N.SHAH, J.C.HEGDE, K.S. |
| PETITIONER | Commissioner of Income – tax , Andhra Pradesh |
| RESPONDENT | Jayalakshmi rice and oil mills contractor co. |
| COURT | Supreme court of India |
| REFERENCE | Income tax Act , Indian Partnership Act |
FACTS OF THE CASE
A Partnership deed was signed in October 6, 1955 and assesee firm was established . it was scheduled to come into force on November 5 ,1954 . after that the assessee has applied for the registration of the firm under section 26 A of the act 1956-57 . the assessee also submitted the registration application before the registrar under section 58 of Indian Partnership Act , 1932.
The registrar had made the entries in the register of the firm but the application under Income Tax Act was refused citing that application was not within time . afterwards the appeal under Assistant appellate authority was also dismissed and then approached to High Court which favours the Asseseee.
ISSUES
whether a partnership’s registration under the Partnership Act results on the day the application for registration is filed under section 58 of the Act?
ARGUMENTS
Registration : Under Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a firm may be registered at any time (not merely at the time of its formation but subsequently also) by filing an application with the Registrar of Firms of the area in which any place of business of the firm is situated or proposed to be situated.
The Assesee claimed for the registration of Firm under the said act , but the contention raised by respondent that this is barred by limitation.
JUDGEMENT
The apex court reversed the decision given by the High Court . The court considered the appropriate points and held the appellant liable for the costs .
The court taken the reference of previous cases as according to Ram Prasad v. Kamta Prasad. Even under the Partnership Act’s section 69, which addresses the repercussions of non-registration, it has been decided repeatedly that a firm’s registration did not resolve the problem after a complaint was filed.
Kerala Road Lines Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, – a firm cannot be considered as registered when The Registrar receives the statement required by sections 58 and 59 of the Indian Partnership Act. The case has been referred to the Supreme Court for further hearing in January.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by KIRANMAI FROM INVERTIS UNIVERSITY BAREILLY , Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
