TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in directing the Income-tax Officer to treat the firm as a registered firm for the assessment year 1970-71 ? " The firm in question had four partners and an application for registration of the firm was filed in Form No. 11, which was signed by only two part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so made to s. 185(3) which gives power to reject or accept the application for registration of the firm. In the result, the Tribunal held that when the authorities were satisfied with the genuineness of the firm, the question of refusing registration to the firm did not arise. We have been taken through the provisions of the Act and have been referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tner but not by the fourth partner. So, the application remained a defective and invalid application, not in accordance with law. Under s. 185 of the Act, the ITO has power to require a defect to be removed before rejecting the same and if it is not removed, to reject the application. There has been some change in the provisions of the Act; so it is convenient to quote s. 185(2) and (3) of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y accept the application. This is a complete misreading of the section. The power is to reject the application. It has to be exercised in a quasi-judicial manner. However, in no case can the ITO accept the application when it is not in accordance with law. To hold otherwise would mean that s. 184(3) and other provisions of the Act would become meaningless because the ITO would be given the power t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r must be used. It means that when the application continues to be defective, it has necessarily to be rejected by the ITO. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had no special jurisdiction by which it could allow an unauthorised or irregular application being treated as a proper application, and, accordingly, the Tribunal was wrong in directing the registration of the firm. The question is answered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
