9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1967-68 and continuation of registration for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ? " The question arises in the background of the following facts : The respondent-firm was said to have been constituted on April 1, 1966, for working as forest contractors and timber merchants pursuant to a partnership deed which was dated July 26, 1966. An application for registration of this partnership was filed before the concerned ITO and it is said to have been presented on June 16, 1966. By his order dated June 9, 1969, the ITO granted registration for the assessment year 1967-68 and this registration was allowed to be continued even for the succeeding years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon the assessee to show cause why the registration orders passed under ss. 185(1) and 184(7) as well as the cancellation orders passed under s. 186(1) should not be cancelled. It should be noted here that it is not understood why the Commissioner wanted to cancel the order passed by the ITO under s. 186(1) cancelling the registration of the firm. Be that as it may, the fact remains that such a show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner and as a result of this revision proceeding, he ultimately cancelled the registration which was granted by the ITO by his order dated June 9, 1969. This final order of the Commissioner is dated May 26, 1971, by which time the AAC had already restored the registration by his order dated April 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate decision, and, hence, it would be the appellate decision alone which remains operative and capable of enforcement. What has happened in this case is that by the appellate order of the AAC passed on April 20, 1971, the original order granting registration passed by the ITO on June 9, 1969, was restored. The subsequent order of the ITO cancelling the registration as well as the previous order granting registration merged in the appellate order passed by the AAC on April 20, 1971. Therefore, when the Commissioner passed his order about a month after the AAC's order on May 26, 1971, what he was doing was to revise the order of the AAC and not the order of the ITO. Since the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
