TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (7) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plications are disposed of by one single order. The Income-tax Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no appeal lay against the order under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The brief facts of the case are that M/s Gudmal Matoliram (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) had claimed for itself the status of a firm, evidenced by a partnership deed dated April 1, 1965, drawn up on April 5, 1965. The first accounting year ended on March 31, 1966, corresponding to the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee filed an application for registration of the firm ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en disposed of by the Income-tax Officer on merits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also realised that the same could not be disposed of on merits unless the Income-tax Officer had also considered the assessee's application for registration filed on April 5, 1965, for the assessment year 1966-67. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as such gave the following direction : " The Income-tax Officer is directed to dispose of these applications after considering the claim for registration for the assessment year 1966-67 and the status of the assessee and the firm's liability to tax should be determined in the light of the order which the Income-tax Officer should pass for the assessment year 1966-67." The Department, aggrieved against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or considering the claim of the assessee for registration for the assessment year 1966-67 and thereafter to determine the firm's liability to tax in the light of the order which the Income-tax Officer should pass for the assessment year 1966-67. Mr. Ranka also placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this court in Bishambar Dayal Sriniwas v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 5 (D. B. Reference Application No. 38 of 1976-decided on October 3, 1985). It was contended by Mr. Ranka that in the above case it was clearly held that where the case is of a composite nature and no separate order has been passed, the provisions of clause (c) of section 246 of the Act will be attracted. It has been further held in the above case that if there is a composite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Income-tax Officer passed no order on such application for registration and the same remained pending till returns were filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1966-67 as well as the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer took no action on the return filed by the assessee with regard to the assessment year 1966-67. As regards the application submitted by the assessee for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, he took the view that as no application for registration had been filed for these years and no order for registration had been granted in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1966-67, as such, the status of the firm would be taken as unregistered firm. In our view, the entire mistake....