TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to grant registration to the respondent-firm and treating the assessee firm as URF?" The necessary facts are, that the assessing officer passed the order annexure/1, under Sec. 185(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 refusing to grant registration to the firm for the assessment year 1991-1992, and has ordered the status of the assessee to be taken as URF (unregistered Firm). Against this order, appeal was filed by the assessee, which was allowed, and the AO was directed to allow the claim of registration to the appellant firm. Against this order, appeal was filed by the Revenue, which was allowed, and order of the AO, refusing registration was restored. It was found in this order dated 30.3.2001, that from the material available on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there was non compliance of the notice, then it has been noticed, that in para 2 of the assessment order, the ITO has observed, that the notice was not fully complied with, however, the partners of the assessee, alongwith the AR appeared on the subsequent dates, and that the assessee had filed the partnership deed and other relevant documents along with the return. In such circumstances, it was found, that it appears, that ITO had not applied judicial mind, while passing order under Sec. 185 (5), because the order is very cursory and devoid of any reasons, which may give an impression, that the ITO had applied judicial mind, before arriving at a particular decision, for not granting the registration to the firm. In view of the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessing officer, not to refuse registration. Obviously, therefore, mere existence of the eventualities contemplated by Sec. 185(5) have the effect only of conferring a power on the assessing officer, to refuse registration, but then, a large question still survives, as to whether in a given case, the assessing officer should exercise this power, i.e. to refuse registration, or proceed with the assessment, without refusing registration. Obviously, it is a judicial discretion, to be exercised on relevant consideration and para meters, which obviously excludes the element of any prejudicial or preconceived attitude, or a attitude to simply penalize the assessee, for some ignorable lapse, here and there. Learned counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghtly passed by the assessing officer. In our view, this would not be the correct reading of the judgment, for the simple reason, that the above submission is not in line with what has been held in the above judgment, that existence of these eventualities, confers jurisdiction on the assessing officer, to proceed under Sec. 185 (5) but then, this judgment, no where lays down, that in each and every case, the registration has to be refused, rather it has been held in this judgment also, that the officer had the discretion to refuse the registration, on that ground alone. We may hasten to make it clear that we should not be understood to mean, that apart from the existence of one of the eventualities contemplated under Sec. 185 (5), s....