2003 (9) TMI 701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee is liable to be assessed as firm. 2.That merely because the certified copy of instrument of partnership deed was not furnished alongwith the return of income by itself, could not constitute a valid ground for making an assessment in the status of AOP though undisputedly, certified copy of the partnership deed was filed in the course of asstt. proceedings. 3.That the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 184(2) and section 185 cannot be regarded as mandatory and absolute in nature so as to disentitle the claim of firm (PFAS) if merely the certified copy of the instrument of partnership deed was filed in the course of asstt. proceedings.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d inadequate. Furthermore, the provisions of section 253(6) clauses (a), (b) and (c ) are not attracted in this case because the order was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 185(5), read with section 184(2) of the Act. In other words, the order under section 185(5), read with section 184(2) could be passed separately without any reference to the total income of the assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer. It is relevant to mention that provisions of section 184(2) and section 185 are nowhere related with the total income computed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has correctly paid/deposited the fee of Rs. 500 as per the provisions of section 253(6)(d) of the Act. Even the defect memo issued b....