T K PATTABHIRAMAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference at the instance of the assessee arises under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act. The following are the questions which are referred

(2.) THE relevant facts are in a short compass. THE original assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 was made on the 20th February, 1969, and for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, on February 13, 1970. For the assessment year 1967-68, the firm was not registered under s. 185(1)(a) but the provisions of s. 183(b) were applied. It was also mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee had filed a declaration under s. 184(7) requesting continuation of registration. But as it was seen from the records of the earlier years that registration had not been granted to the firm at any time, there was no question of continuing the registration. THE firm was, therefore, treated as an unregistered firm subject to the application of s. 183(b)For the assessment year 1968-69, in the assessment order it is expressly stated that the status was being taken as an unregistered firm because though the assessee had claimed that an application for registration had been filed before March 31, 1968, in spite of opportunities being given, the partners did not prove that such an application was filed and that too within time. THE ITO accordingly mentioned at the top of the assessment order that the provisions of s. 183(b) were applied. For the assessment year 1969-70, the status was taken as that of an unregistered firm and the provisions of s. 183(b) were again appliedSubsequently, the ITO, Trichur, wrote a letter on August 14, 1970, to the ITO assessing the assessee.