9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the close of the accounting year. The assessee had also not produced the partners before the ITO. The assessee s explanation was that the firm had been registered before the sub- registrar but according to the ITO this delay in filing Form No. 11 which was as long as seven months, could not be condoned. He accordingly refused registration and took the status of the assessee as URF. The said concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was drawn by the representative of the assessee to his letter dt. 23rd July, 1980 to the AAC in which it had been mentioned that Firm No. 11 alongwith a Deed of Partnership had been initially field with the ITO on 23rd March, 1973 seeking for registration of the firm for the asst. yr. 1973-74. Actually, the firm could not carry on any business in the accounting years relevant to the asst. yrs. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion that the assessee s belief that he was not bound to file another application in Form No. 11 alongwith the partnership deed was genuine one. So far as the appealability of the order refusing to condone registration is concerned, it has been held in Addl. CIT vs. Chekka Ayyama Others (1977) 106 ITR 313 (AP) that an order passed by the ITO u/s 184(7) refusing to allow continuation of regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
