JUDGMENT : N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The question as to whether a firm is entitled to continuation of registration even in a case where it does not stand dissolved or continuation of registration is possible only if the firm stands dissolved was referred by a Division Bench of this court to a Full Bench by its order dated August 14, 1987, It is thus that the aforesaid question has come up for consideration before us. 2. The Division Bench, in referring the aforesaid question to a Full Bench, was of the view that there seemed to be an apparent conflict on the aforesaid question in the decisions of the two Division Benches of this court, one in the case of CIT v. Gopi Talkies, Raigarh [1987] 163 ITR 568(MP) and the other in the case of Ganesh Rice Mills v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 257 (MP). 3. In the case of Gopi Talkies, Raigarh [1987] 163 ITR 568 (MP), the assessee claimed the status as a registered firm in the return filed on June 30, 1975, for the assessment year 1975-76, for which the accounting period ended on November 13, 1974. During this period, one of the partners, namely, Gopiram, died on October 2, 1974. The question which arose for consideration in that case was as to whether the firm was entitled to continuation of registration till October 2, 1974, when Gopiram died. The question was answered by saying that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow continuation of registration till the death of the deceased partner, Gopiram. 4. In the case of Ganesh Rice Mills [1981] 132 ITR 257 (MP), however, it was held that Sub-section (7) of Section 184 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), read with Form No. 12, contemplated continuation of registration for part of a year "only when the firm stood dissolved and there was no question of continuation of registration for part of the year when the firm continued after a change in its constitution which was not evidenced by the instrument of partnership. In this case, one partner had retired and it was held that since there had been only a change in the constitution of the firm and not dissolution thereof the firm was not entitled to continuation of registration for a part of the year. In this case, one partner had retired and it was held that since there had been only a change in the constitution of the firm and not dissolution thereof the firm was not entitled to continuation of registration for a part of the year. The term "person", according to the definition as contained in Section 2(31) of the Act, inter alia, includes a firm also. Consequently, when Section 4(1) of the Act which deals with charge of Income Tax, uses the words "every person", it includes a firm also. Section 182 of the Act deals with assessment of registered firms, whereas Section 183 thereof deals with assessment of unregistered firms. Section 184 of the Act deals with application for registration of a firm for the purposes of the Act and Section 185 prescribes the procedure to be followed on receipt of such an application. Section 186 deals with cancellation of registration with which we are not concerned in the instant case. Section 187 deals with change in the constitution of a firm, whereas Section 188 deals with succession of one firm by another firm. 5. Section 184 of the Act is the main section which is relevant for answering the question referred to us and for the sake of convenience, it is being reproduced hereunder : "184. Application for registration.--(1) An application for registration of a firm for the purposes of this Act may be made to the Income-Officer on behalf of any firm, if- (i) the partnership is evidenced by an instrument; and (ii) the individual shares of the partners are specified in that instrument. (2) Such application may, subject to the provisions of this section, be made either during the existence of the firm or after its dissolution. (3) The application shall be made to the Income Tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the firm and shall be signed- (a) by all the partners (not being minors) personally; or (b) in the case of a dissolved firm, by all persons (not being minors) who were partners in the firm immediately before its dissolution and by the legal representative of any such partner who is deceased. Explanation.--In the case of any partner who is absent from India or is a lunatic or an idiot, the application may be signed by any person duly authorised by him in this behalf, or, as the case may be, by a person entitled under law to represent him. (4) The application shall be made before the end of the previous year for the assessment year in respect of which registration is sought : Provided that the Income Tax Officer may entertain an application made after the end of the previous year, if he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the end of the previous year. (5) The application shall be accompanied by the original instrument evidencing the partnership, together with a copy thereof : Provided that if the Income Tax Officer is satisfied that for sufficient reason, the original instrument cannot conveniently be produced, he may accept a copy of it certified in writing by all the partners (not being minors), or, where the application is made after the dissolution of the firm, by all the persons referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3), to be a correct copy or a certified copy of the instrument; and in such cases the application shall be accompanied by a duplicate copy of the original instrument. (6) The application shall be made in the prescribed form and shall contain the prescribed particulars. (7) Where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year : Provided that- (i) there is no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership on the basis of which the registration was granted; and (ii) the firm furnishes, before the expiry of the time allowed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 139 (whether fixed originally or on extension) for furnishing the return of income for such subsequent assessment year, a declaration to that effect, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, so, however, that where the Income Tax Officer is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the declaration within the time so allowed, he may allow the firm to furnish the declaration at any time before the assessment is made. (8) Where any such change has taken place in the previous year, the firm shall apply for "fresh registration for the assessment year concerned in accordance with the provisions of this section." 6. A perusal of Sub-section (7) of Section 184, together with its proviso, makes it clear that registration granted to any firm for an assessment year shall have effect for every subsequent assessment year only if there is no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partner as evidenced by the instrument of partnership on the basis of which registration was granted. In other words, if there is a change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership on the basis of which registration was granted, the registration granted for a particular assessment year, shall not have effect for the subsequent assessment year. In order to have the benefit of Sub-section (7) of Section 184, the firm, as provided by Clause (ii) of the proviso to the said Sub-section, is required to furnish before the expiry of the time allowed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 139 of the Act (whether fixed originally or on extension) for furnishing the return of income for such subsequent assessment year, a declaration to the effect in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. 7. Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rules "), prescribes that the declaration to be furnished under Sub-section (7) of Section 184 shall be in Form No. 12 and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein and shall be signed by the persons concerned in accordance with Sub-rule (5) of Rule 22. Clause (ii) of Form No. 12 which is relevant for our purpose, reads as hereunder : "Form No. 12 (ii) There has been no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners since the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 19... --19... up to the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 19...--19... or to the date (......19...) of dissolution of the firm ; and......" 8. --19... up to the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 19...--19... or to the date (......19...) of dissolution of the firm ; and......" 8. Clause (ii) aforesaid of Form No. 12 leaves no room for doubt that the necessary declaration contemplated by Section 184(7) of the Act for continuation of registration in Form No. 12 can be made only if there has been no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as contemplated therein since the last date up to the last date of the relevant previous years in question or there has been dissolution of the firm during the relevant year. What Clause (ii), therefore, contemplates is that if there has been no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as stated therein, the benefit of continuation of registration shall be available for the whole year whereas if there has been dissolution of the firm, it shall be available only up to the date of dissolution. The said Clause (ii) does not contemplate continuation of registration when there has been no dissolution of the firm, but a change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners took place during the previous year up to the date of such change. On the other hand, where any such change has taken place in the previous year, the firm shall have to apply for fresh registration for the assessment year concerned as contemplated by Sub-section (8) of Section 184 of the Act. 9. In this connection, reference may be made to Rule 22 of the Rules which deals with the application for registration of a firm. Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 prescribes the procedure for making an application for registration before the end of the relevant previous year where any change or changes in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners have taken place during the previous year before the date of the application. Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 prescribes the procedure for making an application for registration before the end of the relevant previous year where any change or changes in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners have taken place during the previous year before the date of the application. Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, on the other hand, prescribes the procedure for making an application for registration after the end of the relevant previous year where any change or changes in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners have taken place during the said previous year and/or after the end of the previous year, but before the date of the application. Applications under Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) and Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 are to be made in Form No. 11A and they are to be accompanied by the original instrument or instruments evidencing the partnership as in existence from time to time during the period contemplated by Sub-rule (2)(ii)(b) and Sub- rule (4)(ii)(b) of Rule 22. Sub-rule (3) prescribes the procedure for making an application for registration where after the date of making an application under Sub-rule (2), any change or changes in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners have taken place during the previous year. It contemplates a fresh application being made after each such change takes place in accordance with the provisions of Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) and the time-limit prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 184 is to apply to each such application. Rule 22 also prescribes the procedure for making an application by a newly constituted firm for the first time. Such an application is to be made in Form No. 11. In the instant case, we are not concerned with an application to be made in Form No. 11. The relevant form is Form No. 11A, Clause 2 whereof is to the following effect: "form No. 11 A 2. The___original___ of the instrument or instruments evidencing the certified copy partnership in existence from time to time _during the previous year up to during the previous year and _the date of this application___ together with a ___copy____ of each is enclosed. The___original___ of the instrument or instruments evidencing the certified copy partnership in existence from time to time _during the previous year up to during the previous year and _the date of this application___ together with a ___copy____ of each is enclosed. up to the date of this application duplicate copy The prescribed particulars are given in the Schedule on the reverse." The words occurring on the one hand, above the line and on the other, below the line at various places indicate different situations in which applications in Form No. 11A are contemplated. 10. On a conspectus of the various sub-sections of Section 184 of the Act which provide for making of applications with regard to registration of firms in different contingencies, particularly of Sub-sections (7) and (8) as well as of the provisions contained in Rules 22 and 24 of the Rules and the requirements of Forms Nos. 11A and 12, we are of the opinion that continuance of registration contemplated by Sub-section (7) of Section 184 is possible only when there has been no change during the previous year in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners or there has been a dissolution of the firm. Sub-section (4) of Section 184 shows that registration is to be granted in respect of an assessment year and not part of a year. Sub-section (7) also shows that where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent year and that Sub-section does not provide that the registration granted to any form for any assessment year shall have effect for any part of a year. As pointed out above, it can have effect for any part of a year only in case of dissolution of the firm up to the date of such dissolution. 11. As pointed out above, it can have effect for any part of a year only in case of dissolution of the firm up to the date of such dissolution. 11. The view which we take finds support not only from the decision of this court in the case of Ganesh Rice Mills [1981] 132 ITR 257 (MP), but also from the decision of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in K.C. Trunk and Bucket Factory v. CIT In that case, one of the three partners of the firm had ceased to be a partner on account of his death and the other two partners of the firm continued as partners after his death so that there was only a change in the constitution of the firm and there was no dissolution. It was held that, in the circumstances, the assessee had to make an application for fresh registration of the firm and was not entitled to registration till the date on which one of the partners died. In Jawaharlal Khandelwal v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 884 (Orissa) also, one of the partners of the firm had died on August 31, 1964. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed that the assessment year should be divided into two parts : one from the commencement of the year up to August 31, 1968, and the other from September 1, 1968, till October 31, 1968, and that for the first part of the period registration should be allowed to the firm and for the second part assessment should be completed in the status of an unregistered firm. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, however, took the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in upholding the claim for registration up to August 31, 1968. On a reference, the High Court held that the assessee firm's claim to be treated as a registered firm up to August 31, 1968, had no force and the Tribunal's finding was correct. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee, apart from relying on the decision of this court in the case of Gopi Talkies [1987] 163 ITR 568 (MP) also placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in Addl. CIT v. Abdul Kareem and Company [1979] 117 ITR 233 (Mad). That case, however, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it was a case of dissolution of a firm. CIT v. Abdul Kareem and Company [1979] 117 ITR 233 (Mad). That case, however, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as it was a case of dissolution of a firm. It is apparent from the observations made at page 242 of the report where, while distinguishing a decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Kejriwal Traders [1969] 71 ITR 463 (Cal), it was observed as under : "Further, that was not a case of dissolution as here." 13. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the assessee on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Beni Prasad Sidhgopal v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 659 (All). In our opinion, that case is also distinguishable inasmuch as the provisions of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 184 of the Act do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned judges in that case. At any rate, the scope and import of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 184 of the Act have not been considered in the said decision. 14. Lastly, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the assessee on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Surajbhan Om Prakash. That case also is clearly distinguishable on facts: firstly, that was a case of dissolution of a firm and not merely of a change in the constitution of the firm ; and, secondly, the question of registration did not arise in that case. 15. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us is that the decision of this court in the case of Ganesh Rice Mills [1981] 132 ITR 257 (MP) lays down the correct law, namely, that Sub-section (7) of Section 184 of the Income Tax Act read with Form No. 12 contemplates continuance of registration for part of a year only when the firm stands dissolved and there is no question of continuation of registration for part of the year when the firm continues after a change in its constitution which is not evidenced by an instrument of partnership. In such a case, an application for registration has to be made in accordance with the new instrument of partnership. 16. M.C.C. No. 122 of 1981 may now be listed before the appropriate Bench for decision along with this opinion of ours.