9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried on business in the status of a partnership firm. This firm was originally registered under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1952-53 by an order of the ITO dated September 8, 1952. Since then the firm was granted renewal of registration every year till 1961-62. For the assessment year 1962-63, when the I.T. Act, 1961, came into force, the registration of this fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration. The AAC held, and in our opinion correctly, that since the firm had automatically gained recognition under s. 184(7) of the Act, the ITO did not have power to refuse registration under s. 185(5) of the Act. The case fell under s. 186(2) whereunder the ITO could cancel registration of the firm on the ground that the assessment was made under s. 144; but this power could be exercised o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with that advice. The Tribunal went on to hold that the status of the assessee should have been treated as that of a registered firm. The Tribunal has, at the instance of the CIT, referred the following question of law for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the AAC having come to the conclusion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the initial stage of granting or recognizing registration. Subsequently, the ITO could, if at all, pass an order of cancellation of registration under s. 186(2) of the Act. That could be done after giving the requisite notice and opportunity of being heard. The AAC was aware of the situation that the assessment had, in fact, been passed under s. 144. That was a ground relevant for refusing regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
