9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-77 and 14-3-1980 for the assessment year 1977-78. For the assessment year 1976-77, the ITO merely wrote that the assessee-firm had entered into business for maintenance of the administration of Parvati Combines, Visakhapatnam, and as a matter of fact the firm had entered into a sham transaction and there was no real business. As it was a firm without real business activity, the ITO held that registration could not be granted. For the assessment year 1977-78. on the same basis registration was refused. 3. The matter went up in appeal. The AAC stated that the firm came into existence under a deed dated 1-4-1975 with four partners and it was stated that the nature of the business was to organise managerial service to two theatres-Geet and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h by the assessee that there was an earlier order dated 27-2-1979. 6. We have looked into the records and we find that for the assessment year 1976-77, there was an order dated 27-2-1979 duly signed by the ITO granting registration to the assessee. So also, for the assessment year 1977-78, there was an order duly signed by the ITO dated 27-2-1979 granting registration to the assessee. The AAC considered these to be draft orders because they were not communicated to the assessee. It is not necessary that for an order to be final, it should be communicated to the assessee. The case relied on by the AAC, i.e., Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raj Singh [1959] 37 ITR 264 (Bom.), deals with the point of limitation for filing an appeal or re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 1977-78, has just drawn two red lines across the order and made the endorsement ' cancelled '. It is not open, in our view, to the ITO to cancel an order passed by him granting registration under section 185(1)(a) in the aforesaid manner. It can be done only in a manner prescribed under law. If any authority is necessary in support of oar finding, there are the observations of the Supreme Court in ITO v. S.K. Habibullah [1962] 44 ITR 809 where after referring to the observations of the Privy Council in CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas [1938] 6 ITR 414, 424 the Supreme Court observed as under : " The orders of assessment are, subject to the provisions relating to appeals, revisions, reassessment and rectification, final ; it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
