9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The only common issue for consideration in these appeals and cross-objections is whether AAC erred in cancelling the ITO's order under s. 186(1) of the Act. The relevant facts are that assessee firm was constituted on 1st Sept., 1973. Registration was duly allowed. The continuation of registration was also allowed till 1977-78. In these as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee Shri Ranka submitted that when the registration was duly granted to the assessee-firm, no change was found in these years under consideration after allowing the registration in 1974-75. Genuineness of the firm is not doubted. When the firm is genuine, ITO was not justified in cancelling the registration. For that he relied on various decisions in V.K. Kurien K.P. George vs. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration was also allowed till 1977-78. Genuineness of the firm is not doubted. Profits are shared as per partner deed. Following facts are pointed out for cancellation of the registration by the ITO which are referred in para 2 of the AAC's order, which are reproduced for ready reference: "(a) The date of execution of the deed was originally written 1st Sept., 1972 but it was corrected as 1st Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear. It should have been filed before Dec., 1973 according to the above mentioned cl. 13 of the said partnership deed." These defects were remained from the beginning when the registration was allowed. Therefore, in my view inspite of these facts remained in Sept., 1973 the registration was allowed, now registration cannot be cancelled on those defects which were duly considered and registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
