1987 (3) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assistant Commissioner ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a defect in the declaration filed in Form No. 12 which could be corrected subsequently by the partners of the firm ? " The assessee is a partnership firm. In the year in question it applied for registration in terms of section 184(7) of the Act. The application was, however, signed by only one of the partners. By order dated December 30, 1974, the assessee was asked to show cause why its application for registration under section 184(7) of the Act be not refused, as the application was not signed by all the partners. The very following day, i.e., on December, 31, 1974, the assessee filed fresh Fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....avour with the Tribunal. The appeal of the Revenue was, therefore, rejected on all counts. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, filed an application for reference to this court. The Tribunal has thus referred the questions mentioned earlier for our opinion. In regard to the validity of the appeal which has been raised in the first question, for our opinion, it must be observed that the question is concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. Gyanchand Bedi [1987].163 ITR 693, This court, following the decision of this court in Madhur Jalpan V. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 351, held that where the appeal is against the order of assessment as well as against the rejection of the status of the assessee, appeal against the r....