1991 (7) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... s. 143(1) of the Act. In the reassessment proceedings the ITO made addition of Rs. 20,000 and assessed the firm at Rs. 50,310. At the foot of the assessment order he passed a separate order under s. 185 of the Act in which he held that the partnership was "in genuine" and as such was treated as URF. Against the order treating the assessee as URF by order under s. 185, it filed appeal before the Dy. CIT(A) and submitted that the order treating the assessee firm as unregistered firm was erroneous. It was submitted that the firm has been treated as URF solely on the basis of statement (letter dt. 23rd July, 1979) of one of the partners but that letter has been submitted under coercion and should not have formed basis for holding that the firm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n decisions in Isha Beevi & Ors. vs. TRO 1975 CTR (SC) 300 : (1975) 101 ITR 449 (SC), Addl. CIT vs. Packo Engg. Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 232 : (1983) 143 ITR 415 (Bom), Joseph Kuruvila vs. CIT (1989) 77 CTR (Ker) 192 : (1989) 179 ITR 139 (Ker), Bal Erectors vs. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 625 (P&H), and Prabhudayal Amichand vs. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 84 (MP). It was also submitted that the error which the ITO has committed was a procedural error and as such the ITO's order should not have been cancelled but should have been merely set aside. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and facts on record. In the present case, the ITO has passed order under s. 185 of the Act which is as follows: "Order under s. 185. The statements of Shri Ro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oval and it is only after obtaining the approval of the IAC that he could pass a valid order of cancellation of registration. Without such approval he has no jurisdiction to pass an order of cancellation of registration. The ITO had never in mind the provisions of s. 186 of the Act. He consciously acted in accordance with the provisions of s. 185 of the Act. Consequently, those decisions would not apply in which it has been held that mere mention of wrong section would not invalidate the proceedings. If there are two provisions of law which are different from each other and if the concerned authority consciously takes action under one of these two provisions, then it cannot be said that his action should be construed as to have been taken u....