1982 (6) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the years under consideration. After the assessee's claim of registration for the two years under consideration was accepted by the ITO, the CIT treated the said two orders as erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, vide his order dt. 4th Dec., 1980 we set aside the two orders of the ITO to the extent of grant of registration in the first year and continuation of registration in the second year and made the following observation in that regard: "2. In response to this notice, Sh. S. N. Agrawal, advocate, attended on behalf of the assessee and under the letter dt. 4th Oct., 1980 claimed that the orders were not erroneous since application for registration in Form No. 11 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nserted subsequently. Not only this but what is more relevant before me is that when the ITO framed the assessment order dt. 13th Feb., 1979, he was well-aware of the investigation in r/o this disputed entry. The records indicate specifically that he was aware of the investigations going on r/o receipt of application for registration in Form No. 11. He even left on office-note to say that if a conclusion was arrived at that application for registration/partnership deed was filed after the end of the assessment year, registration would be cancelled. This would indicate without doubt that while granting registration under s. 185(1), the ITO failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and failed to conclude whether the application for re....