High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
Kamalkishore & Co. vs. CIT
Asst. Year1978-79, 1979-80
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J. & R.K. Verma, J.
Misc. Civil Case No. 136 of 1987
4th August, 1988
Chaphekar, for the Assessee : R.C. Mukati, for the Revenue
G. G. SOHANI, ACTG. C. J.:
The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 137 and 139, both of 1987. These are applications under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The assessee is a partnership firm which was granted registration for the asst. yr. 1977-78. For the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80, the registration of the assessee was continued and the assessee was assessed under s. 143(3) of the Act in the status of a registered firm for all these years. Subsequently, on the basis of information gathered during the course of survey conducted under s. 133A of the Act in the premises of the assessee as well as in the premises of two other firms, Iqbal & Co., Unhel, and Chetanswaroop Omprakash & Co., the ITO came to the conclusion that the assessee-firm was not genuine and the ITO, therefore, cancelled the registration/continuation of registration granted to the assessee-firm. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-firm preferred appeals before the AAC who allowed these appeals. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AAC, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed these appeals and setting aside the order passed by the AAC, directed the to restore the appeals to his file and to decide them afresh. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee sought a reference but as the applications filed by the assessee in that behalf were rejected, the assessee has filed these applications.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal :
” Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view of the ground of appeal taken before it, erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the AAC whereby the order of the ITO cancelling registration/continuation of registration of the assessee-firm was set aside ? “
4. The applications are, therefore, allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this Court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these applications.
[Citation : 175 ITR 252]