TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reversing that order of the Income-tax Officer, whereby the registration of the assessee was cancelled ?" The assessee claimed the status of a registered firm for the year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 but the Income-tax Officer treated the assessee as an unregistered firm. The assessee had filed Form No. 12 on July 30, 1976, as required by section 184(7), as it stood in the relevant year. The Assessing Officer took due note of the fact that though the assessee in the assessment year in question had obtained excise contracts in the name of its individual partners, Shri Nageshwar Prasad Gupta and Shri Bindeshwar Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the licensees named therein. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Accountant Member of the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer had not followed the procedure prescribed under section 186(1) as he had not sought previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 186(1) was irregular. The Judicial Member, however, held that the order was ab initio void and was not curable and, accordingly, on this difference of opinion, the matter was referred to the Third Member. The Third Member, however, remitted the matter back to the Bench which initially heard the appeal for decision as to whether section 186(1) of the Act at all app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goda Hotel and Restaurant [1974] 93 ITR 271 (MP), it was held that since the privilege obtained in the name of individuals could not be transferred without permission of the Collector as required, partnership to the extent of the said business under the privilege was illegal but the partnership with regard to the other business, namely, running of hotel, was not affected and there was no reason why partnership with regard to the other business could not be registered under the Income-tax Act. Likewise, in CIT v. Sheonarayan Harnarayan [1975] 100 ITR 213, this court held that since there cannot be any partnership for the working of such a privilege of supply or sale of liquor granted to individuals unless there was a written permission of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Sheonarayan Harnarayan [1975] 100 ITR 213 (MP) and Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant [1974] 93 ITR 271 (MP), the genuineness of the firm, in so far as it related to its other activities which are not clear from the record before us, could not have been doubted. A similar question arose before the Indore Bench of this court in M. C. C. No. 186 of 1988 : CIT v. Omprakash Premchand and Co. [1997] 227 ITR 590 with the only difference in the factual matrix that the licence had been granted by the Excise Department in the name of the firm itself and this court upheld the order of the Tribunal directing assessment of the firm as a registered firm. In the present case, however, it is clear that licence had been granted in the names of the two par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
