9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (3) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and determined its loss in a sum of ₹ 100980/-. In making the assessment the officer treated the petitioner as an unregistered firm on the ground that it did not file an application for registration. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax who by his order dated the 17th September, 1954, set aside the assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to receive a duplicate application for registration from the petitioner and to deal with it according to law. By the time the appeal was disposed of, the officer who made the assessment was succeeded by another. The succeeding incumbent of the office issued a memo to the petitioner on the 19th May, 1956, calli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tset, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stated: The appeal is against the non-registering of the firm. 6. It was alleged before him that an application for registration of the firm was actually filed on the 28th February 1953 but that it was not considered. On a consideration of the circumstances-placed before him, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that there was an application for registration and the completion of the assessment without considering that application was illegal. He, therefore, set aside the assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to receive a duplicate application for registration and to deal with it according to law. 7. The question then is :-- Is it open to the Income-tax Officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department has not been able to place before me any authority which would warrant the action sought to be taken against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. 8. Pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to consider the one and the only question referred to him, viz., whether the firm's application for registration should be allowed. There is no other question before the Income-tax Officer and he would certainly be transgressing the limits set down by law if he were to embark upon a fresh enquiry as to the quantum of the income or the loss incurred by the petitioner. 9. As there is a clear and patent want of jurisdiction on the part of the 2nd respondent to make a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
