9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en allowed registration in the proceeding year. During the following year namely the asst. yr. 1980-81 the appellant firm applied for renewal of registration in the prescribed form No. 12. According to the ITO the assessee had concealed sizeable part of his income carried out in the name of Pawan Udhyog. Accordingly one of the two important requirements namely that the profit and loss, if any, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration all the conditions entitling the assessee for renewal of registration have been complied with. Hence, renewal of registration could not have been refused, particularly when the requirements prescribed under the statute have been complied with. Had the ITO wanted to challenge the genuineness of the ground or make enquiries thereto, the legal course opened to them could have been to take re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue pointed out that Commissioner (A) in reversing the finding of the ITO did not meet the point which had been raised by the ITO in disallowing the renewal registration. According to him business of M/s Pawan Udyog was the benami business of the assessee firm. Therefore, the profit derived from M/s. Pawan Udyog during the year was left undistributed amongst the partners of the assessee fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee that the income of Pawan Udyog was liable to be included in the income of the assessee in appeal. There was no rebuttal of the claim of the assessee that Commissioner (A) had not endorsed the inclusion on the ground that Pawan Udyog was the benami concern of the assessee. In absence of any rebuttal from the Revenue that the finding of Commissioner (A) had been challenged in an appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
