1966 (2) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icer discovered certain discrepancies between the assessee's operation through the banking account and the assessee's relationship under the registered partnership deed and refused therefore the renewal of registration of the assessee's firm under section 26A. Subsequent to that, an order was passed under rule 6B cancelling the registration of the firm in respect of assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56. Thereupon, notice under section 34 was issued to the assessee for reopening the assessment for those two years and, after compliance by the assessee, the assessments were made. Against those assessments, the assessee went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and failing there, before the Appellate Tribunal. Before both those aut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsider that. The assessee might have gone in appeal against that and agitated that question at different stage as provided under the law. That he did not do. Learned counsel appearing for him, however, contends that the bona fide impression prevailing with the assessee and his legal advisers was that there was no provision in law for an appeal against an order passed under rule 6B. On account of some decisions of the Madras High Court, this erroneous impression may have held the ground. Now, that position has been clarified by a decision of the Supreme Court, in which it has been held that that order also can be agitated in appeal as if it were an order passed under rule 6A refusing registration. Be that as it may, in this proceeding under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not come under sub-section 34(1)(b); in other words, the cancellation of the registration information which could justify initiation under rule 6B did not amount to an initiation of proceedings under section 34; nor is it contended by him that the reassessment was initiated beyond the stipulated time of four years. Learned counsel, however, very strenuously attempted to bring the order passed under rule 6B for examination in this case before us but, as we have said, the forum for that is otherwise, and if advised, he may seek his redress in that forum subject to the question of limitation. For the reasons given above, we have to answer the question as reframed in the affirmative and dispose of these references accordingly. In view of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X