Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (2) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTReference, Firm, Change In Constitution Of Firm - It was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer should have given an opportunity to the assessee to remove the defects in terms of section (2) of section 185. We have reproduced the provision of sub-section (2) of section 185 which patently show that the defects contemplated are of a procedural or clerical nature and the defects like the non-execution of the partnership within the accounting period or non-filing of the applications for registration/renewal within time are not defects which are capable of being cured or removed. - there is nothing on record to show what happened in the intervening assessment years, i.e., the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the grant of renewal of registration for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 is consequential to the grant of registration for the assessment year 1981-82 and the questions, as proposed, also adopt the same approach. Therefore, registration having not been allowed for the assessment year 1981-82, no question of renewal of registration for the aforesaid years would arise
|