COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TRIMURTI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" ('the Tribunal' for short), by means of this reference, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following questions of law, for our opinion, for the assessment year 1983-84:-

(2.) The respondent assessee is a firm treated as Unregistered Firm (URF) by the Income-tax Officer vide order dated February 21, 1985. The ex-parte assessment was made against the respondent assessee URF and order came to be passed as a result of persistent non-compliance with the notices issued by the ITO from time to time under sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act. It appears from the record of the case that on some of the dates fixed for hearing, adjournment applications were moved on behalf of the assessee whereas on some other dates there was no compliance at all. As a result thereof, the ITO fixed hearing of the case on February 18, 1985. In the letter dated 8.2.1995 it has been clearly indicated that in case of non-compliance, the firm would be treated as URF. Notwithstanding receipt of the aforesaid notice, the assessee failed to attend which has resulted in an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act as also the refusal of registration.

(3.) CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) recorded the order refusing registration as an order under section 186 (2) of the Act and the letter dated 8.2.1985 of the ITO as a notice within the meaning of Section 186 (2) of the Act.