2004 (10) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income-tax Officer was duty bound in law to make the separate assessments in respect of the two periods and in further directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude from the assessment the income pertaining to first period? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow renewal of registration for the assessment year under consideration in respect of the previous year period from May 1, 1974, to March 2, 1975?" Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The respondent-assessee is a firm. The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77, the previous year used to be from May 1 to April 30, i.e., from M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o assessments should be made. He also rejected the application for grant of registration filed in Form No. 11A of the Act as he did not condone the delay. However, he did not pass any order on the application filed in Form No. 12 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the respondent preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer. The matter was taken up in further appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that only one assessment and not two assessments should be made. Further it is also held that there was no partnership deed in the eyes of law after March 2, 1975, and, therefore, the registration has rightly been refused by the assessing authority. So far....