9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refusal of registration of partnership firm under section 185 for assessment year 1989-90. Analysis: The appeal was against the order of CIT(A) confirming the refusal of registration of a partnership firm. The Assessing Officer refused registration due to doubts about the firm's genuineness, which was challenged by the assessee. The assessee argued that registration should have been deemed granted as per section 185(6) since no action was taken within the specified time limit. The Assessing Officer issued a notice after the time limit, asking for partners' examination, which the assessee failed to comply with. The Departmental Representative contended that the Assessing Officer rightly rejected registration due to the assessee's failure to produce partners for examination. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not issue an independent notice regarding firm registration as required by section 185. The time limit for registration decision under section 185(6) had passed without any action, leading to deemed registration. The Tribunal emphasized the independent nature of the registration process under section 185, with a specific time limit for decision-making. Once the firm is deemed registered, the Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to examine genuineness. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to register the firm, allowing the assessee's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's procedure for examining registration inadequate and ruled in favor of the assessee based on the provisions of section 185(6) deeming the firm registered. The decision highlighted the importance of following the specific procedures outlined in the law for registration of partnership firms under section 185.
|
