COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GAJRAJSINGH AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act. The question referred is :

(2.) IT appears that the assessee-firm's registration was refiised in the earlier assessment year 1972-73 and in the assessment year in question, i.e., 1973-74, an application in the form for continuance of the registration was submitted late and, therefore, rejected by the ITO. The AAC also confirmed the findings arrived at by the ITO. But the Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, felt that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the ITO and also by the AAC and allowed the continuance of registration of the firm. Against this judgment, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Department, the present reference is made.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, our answer to the question is in the affirmative that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the ITO to allow continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.