9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred the undernoted two questions of law for our opinion : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee was bound to make a fresh application for registration under section 184(8) of the Act and that the firm was not entitled to renewal of registration up to August 14, 1976 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that even if some of the partners had been assessed on their respective shares of income, the assessee was rightly assessed as an unregistered firm for the whole accounting year ? " Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the whole period. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The orders passed by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal are marked as annexures "A", "B" and "C", respectively. Copies of the dissolution deed and partnership deed were placed on record as annexures "D" and "E", respectively. The Tribunal did not refer the question as a result of which the assessee filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 92 of 1985. The direction was made by this court. This is how the Tribunal referred the aforesaid two questions. We have heard Shri S. C. Bagdiya, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee, and Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant/Department. Right at the threshold counsel for the parties point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR 1, counsel for the Department was unable to submit anything substantial in oppugnation. In the aforesaid decision, this court took the view as under (page 3) : " On the question as to whether the firm could be granted renewal of registration for the period from April 1, 1976, to August 25, 1976, the matter, in our opinion, is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 761 (SC). In view of that decision, it must be held that the firm would be entitled to renewal of registration from April 1, 1976, to August 25, 1976, and that the firm would be assessed as a registered firm till August 25, 1976, and as an unregistered firm for the remaining part of the previous year. " It is thus clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
