9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the asst. yr. 1966-67, for the previous year ending 31st Dec., 1965 the appellant was granted registration under s. 185(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, by the ITO, Betul, by his order dt. 14th Jan., 1971. On the same day, the ITO also granted continuation of registration of the appellant firm for the three subsequent asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1969-70. 4. These orders of the ITO were considered by the Addl. CIT as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the Appellant s claim that it had filed the application for Registration in Form No. 11-A along with the original deed of partnership on 3rd Aug., 1965 with the ITO, Khandwa, was not correct, that the contents of the acknowledgement receipt bearing Sl. No. 296635 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the Appellant Firm. 6. Shri Waikar, the learned Departmental Representative, relied on the orders of the Additional CIT and contended that they were rightly passed as the impugned orders of the ITO were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the appellant cannot feel aggrieved by the orders of the Addl. CIT who had only directed the ITO to make a proper enquiry after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to prove its case. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions urged on both sides and the papers relied on the Addl. CIT by calling upon the learned Departmental Representative to produce them before us. 8. The main piece of evidence that is relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under s. 185. Partners of firm have applied for registration of firm. It is in order. It was contended by the representatives of the assessee that the original application on form No. 11A was filed on 3rd Aug., 1965. The acknowledgement for the same was produced. Registration is granted for the asst. yr. 1966-67. Betul : Dt. 14-1-71 (K.N. Toorray) ITO, Betul" It will be seen from the above order that the ITO was aware of this acknowledgement dt. 3rd Aug., 1965 and that he granted registration to the appellant firm after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the appellant firm and about the genuineness of the appellant s claim that he had filed to application in Form No. 11A and the partnership deed on 3rd Aug., 1965. 9. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any omission that may occur in the ITO, Khandwa. In spite of the fact that the proceedings were pending with the ITO from February, 1968, to January 1971, no attempt was made to examine the concerned clerk of the Department who had singed the acknowledgement receipt and obtain his explanation for the various discrepancies mentioned by the Addl. CIT in his order. In fact, nothing appears to have been done even after January, 1971, to January 1973, before the CIT passed this order under s. 263 to obtain the evidence of the said clerk who will be the bet person to explain these discrepancies. The appellant s representative Shri R.A. Goel, in his statement rightly stated that he was not responsible for the absence of entries in the Receipts R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the ordinary course of normal business transactions. 13. The above discussion and the evidence relied on by the CIT to cancel the order of registration passed by the ITO under s. 185 of the Act will show that the Addl. CIT had acted on mere suspicion. In fact, the Revenue has failed to bring on record that best evidence that would explain the discrepancies which the has created this suspicion in spite of the fact that the proceedings were pending for nearly five years. The Addl. CIT also accepts in his order that it is prima facie a case of strong suspicion for holding that the Form No. 11A and the partnership deed were not filed on 3rd Aug., 1965. We are, therefore, satisfied that on the materials relied on by him, the Addl. CIT cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s claim for registration was in order and granted registration to the appellant for 1966-67. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Addl. CIT did not have any material to set-aside this considered order of the ITO by invoking his revisional jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act and that the order of the Addl. CIT cannot be sustained. 14. Since the orders of the Addl. CIT for the three subsequent asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 are only consequential of his orders passed under s. 263 in the year assessment 1966-67, they also cannot be sustained for the reasons set out above. We, therefore, reverse the order of the Addl. CIT passed under s. 263 for all the four asst. yrs. 1966-67 and restore the orders of the ITO passed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
