9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant continuation of registration by going into the question of genuineness of the firm in view of the fact that the registration for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1966-67 had already been granted and conditions as laid down in section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had also been complied with?" Briefly stated, the facts are, as is evident from the statement of the case, that the assessee was stated to be a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Puran Mal, Laxmi Narain and Bimla Devi and, in addition thereto, two minors were also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The present reference is in respect of the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grant of registration under section 184(1) of the Act, if the conditions stipulated by section 186(1) were satisfied, then an order could be passed by the Income-tax Officer and registration refused. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee sought reference of a number of questions to this court. One of the questions sought to be referred for each of the years was whether there was any justification for refusal of the grant of registration. Another question sought was whether there was any material for holding that the assessee-firm was not a genuine firm. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not refer any questions on the merits, dealing with the contentions relating to the genuineness of the firm. It came to the conclusion that the said ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder under section 186(1) can still be passed. If there is a change in the composition of the firm, then section 184(7) itself does not apply because of the proviso thereto. But where there is no ostensible change in the constitution of the firm and the Assessing Officer still comes to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record, that the firm is not genuine, then the jurisdiction under section 186(1) is in no way curtailed. As the question of genuineness of the firm is not before us, we must proceed on the basis that the said firm was not found to be genuine for the years in question. This being so, an order under section 186(1) could validly be passed. In our opinion, it makes no difference whether, for two years, namely, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
