9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee-firm as sought by it. The Income-tax Officer refused registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1972-73 holding that it had failed to comply with the terms of the notice issued to it under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This order was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The contention raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and that the Income-tax Officer had, therefore, rightly exercised his discretion and powers in refusing registration to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this view. It is in this factual background that the following question came to be referred to this court for its opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Income-tax Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with both these matters separately. This again is a contention wholly devoid of merit as the record would show that the Income-tax Officer has indeed dealt with these matters separately, though both the matters were decided on the same day. There is no error in this as held in CIT v. Jekisondas Bhukandas [1967] 66 ITR 515 (Guj), and both the powers can be exercised simultaneously by the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
