9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of registration claim for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1983-84. Analysis: The case involved three appeals by the assessee challenging the rejection of the registration claim by the first appellate authority. The appeals pertained to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84, with similar issues across all three appeals. The central issue revolved around the cancellation of registration due to the presence of alleged bogus partners and diversion of profits. The AO found that profits meant for the family were redirected through bogus partners. One such partner, Kundomal, denied being a partner or making any gifts upon investigation. The AO cancelled the registration under section 186(1) with the Deputy CIT's approval. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision despite the assessee's submissions, leading to the appeals. In the submissions before the ITAT, the assessee argued against the cancellation of registration based on the statement recorded after a significant gap and by an AO lacking jurisdiction. The assessee cited legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing that registration should not be cancelled solely based on delayed partner statements. The Departmental Representative countered, highlighting the challenges in obtaining case records and urging a decision based on available evidence. After careful consideration, the ITAT found the AO's actions legally unsustainable. The AO's lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish Kundomal's benami status were key factors in the decision. The ITAT also noted the absence of partner statements refuting Kundomal's partnership. Relying on legal precedents and the lack of concrete evidence against the assessee, the ITAT concluded that the registration cancellation was unjustified. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) and AO's orders, reinstating the original registration. Given the similarity of facts across the three assessment years, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee for all three appeals. The ITAT's decision allowed all three appeals, overturning the rejection of the registration claim for the respective assessment years.
|
