1984 (5) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d during the year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. Therefore, there is no question of renewal of registration. Even then the assessee was given a show-cause notice vide this office letter dt. 8th Dec., 1980. The assessee did not file any reply. Again when the assessee's application received for objecting the assessment and reopening the case under s. 143(2)(b) the case was fixed two times on 20th Feb., 1981 and 10th March, 1981 whereas the counsel for the assessee filed an application for adjournment on 20th Feb., 1981. There was no attendance nor any application for adjournment on 10th March, 1981. Thus the genuineness of the partnership could not be looked into otherwise the firm could not be granted registration in view of Punjab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion had been refused by the ITO and again the claim of registration could not be gone into as the assessment was made ex parte. Further the registration was not allowable in view of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hardit Sing Paul Chand & Co. He pointed out that the registration for the asst. yr. 1977-78 had already been allowed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the benefit of continuation of registration has to be allowed for the assessment year under appeal as declaration in Form No. 12 was duly filed and there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the profit sharing ratio of the partners. He also pointed out that the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court relied on by the ITO was duly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee, on the other hand, contended that the assessment made by the ITO under s. 143(1) was reopened by the ITO on request of the assessee under s. 143(2)(a) of the IT Act. He then referred to the Expln. (1)(f) below s. 143 and pointed out that an assessment under sub-s. (1) of s. 143 shall be deemed to be incorrect if the status in which the assessee has been assesses under s. (1) is different from the status in which the assessee is properly assessable under the Act. He also referred to Expln. (2) where status in this context has been defined as registered or an unregistered firm. He, therefore, urged that once the order under s. 143(1) was recalled under s. 143(2)(a), the whole order including the status stood set aside and it was op....