JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : "(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not required to file a declaration in Form No. 12 before June 30, 1973, because by that time, the registration for the previous year was not granted ? (2) Whether the assessee was bound to file the declaration in Form No. 12 along with the return which was filed after the date of registration for the previous year ? (3) If the reply to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in accepting the contention of the assessee that the assessee was under the mistaken belief that even after the death of a partner, Form No. 12 which was signed by him during his lifetime could be utilised after his death by putting thereon the date when it was sought to be filed ?" 2. The assessee-firm has been carrying on business since 1969-70. It applied for registration for the assessment year 1972-73 during the relevant year, but the registration was granted on February 24, 1975. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee ought to have filed its return on June 30, 1973, and along with the return, the assessee ought to have filed a declaration in Form No. 12. What the assessee did was to file the declaration on June 30, 1974, but the return of income came to be filed on September 27, 1975, that is, after the registration was granted. The declaration which was filed for the assessment year 1973-74 was signed by one of the partners Dahyabhai Purshottamdas Patel, who had died on February 20, 1973. 3. The Income-tax Officer noticing that the declaration was not filed within the prescribed time, issued a show-cause notice under section 185 of the Act calling upon the assessee to show-cause as to why its registration be allowed to continue for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer, after considering the explanation given by the assessee and taking the view that there is no rule for condoning delay in filing the declaration, held that the firm should be treated as an unregistered firm. The Income-tax Officer, after considering the explanation given by the assessee and taking the view that there is no rule for condoning delay in filing the declaration, held that the firm should be treated as an unregistered firm. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was pointed out that the assessee was filing the return and the declaration within the prescribed time and even the return for the assessment year 1971-72 was filed in time. Unfortunately, the main partner Dahyabhai Purshottamdas Patel started keeping indifferent health and ultimately died on February 20, 1973. It was for that reason and also for the reason that the tax consultant was changed, that the declaration could not be filed within time. It was the tax consultant who pointed out that the declaration was not filed as required and, therefore, on his advice, it was immediately filed on June 30, 1974. It was also explained that the signature of Dahyabhai Purshottamdas Patel was obtained on blank form as per the old practice and one such form signed by him was really presented on June 30, 1974. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation of the assessee as regards the delay in filing the declaration and held that there was good cause for condoning the delay. But, as regards the declaration form, even though he believed that the signature of Dahyabhai was genuine, he held that the said declaration could not be regarded as valid as Dahyabhai was no more in existence on June 30, 1974. He, therefore, confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, whereby it was held that the assessee was not entitled to continuation of registration. 4. The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. After considering the explanation of the assessee, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing a valid declaration within time and, therefore, there was good cause for condonation of delay. Thus, the finding recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Tribunal. As regards the validity of the form, the Tribunal held that the assessee was under a mistaken belief that, even after the death of the partner, Form No. 12 filled in by him during his lifetime could be produced after putting the date of filing thereon. Thus, the finding recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Tribunal. As regards the validity of the form, the Tribunal held that the assessee was under a mistaken belief that, even after the death of the partner, Form No. 12 filled in by him during his lifetime could be produced after putting the date of filing thereon. Thus, the Tribunal considered the declaration as valid and allowed the appeal directing the authorities below to treat the firm as a registered firm for the assessment year. 5. What is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue is that the assessee ought to have filed the declaration for the assessment year 1973-74 on or before June 30, 1973, as that was the last date on which the income-tax return ought to have been filed for that assessment year. Now, what is required to be borne in mind is that, even though the assessee had applied much earlier for registration for the assessment year 1972-73, the same was granted only on February 24, 1975. Since no registration was granted by June 30, 1973, the assessee could not have filed the declaration in Form No. 12. By June 30, 1973, registration for the previous year was not granted. It was for that reason that the Tribunal held that this was a fit case where the Income-tax Officer should have condoned the delay in filing the declaration within time. In view of the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in accepting the explanation of the assessee for not filing the declaration within time. Whether an explanation should be accepted or not is basically a question of fact and as no principle was applied in this case for considering whether the explanation of the assessee should be accepted or not, we will have to consider the finding reached by the Tribunal in this case as a finding of fact. Therefore, in view of the facts of this case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee was not required to file the declaration before June 30, 1973, cannot be said to be wrong. Therefore, in view of the facts of this case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee was not required to file the declaration before June 30, 1973, cannot be said to be wrong. As per the requirement of law, the assessee was bound to file the declaration in Form No. 12 along with the return which it ought to have filed on or before June 30, 1973, and ought to have filed a fresh declaration along with the return which was actually filed on September 27, 1975, that is, after the death of the partner for registration for the previous year. In view of the facts of this case, the Tribunal rightly held that the delay in filing the declaration form in this case deserved to be condoned and the assessee was not required to file the declaration before June 30, 1973. 6. As regards the use of the declaration signed by the partner who had died earlier, the Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assessee. As stated earlier, the explanation of the assessee was also accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as he believed that the declaration of the partner was genuine ; that it was customary to take signatures of partners on blank forms and that when the date June 30, 1973, was put thereon, it was with a view to show that it was presented on that day. The Tribunal thus accepted the explanation of the assessee that it was under a mistaken belief that such a thing could be done that the declaration form signed by a dead partner was presented by it on June 30, 1974. Considering the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed an error of law in accepting the explanation of the assessee. 7. In the result, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. Question No. 3 is also answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.