S.C.MOHAPATRA, J. - (1.)THIS is a reference under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A statement of case has been made to this Court having been called for on the following question of law:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the learned Tribunal that the appeal before the Asstt. CIT is not maintainable against an order passed under s. 184(4) of the Act is correct?"

(2.)THE assessee is a partnership firm which was getting the benefit of registration in earlier years. In respect of the year 1976 77, there was reconstitution of the firm. When the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment of the firm, it found that the assessee has not applied for fresh registration as required under S. 184(8) of the Act for getting the benefit of registration. When this was confronted to the assessee, it filed a memorandum submitting that there has been a change in the constitution of the firm for the asst. year 1976 77 and two new partners have been admitted by a deed of partnership duly executed by all the partners w.e.f. October 1, 1974.
Intimation has been given to various authorities including the IT Department in the month of October, 1974, itself. This fact has also been published in the bulletin of Ganjam Chamber of Commerce. The partnership deed in original along with Form No. 11A was filed in due time for its registration by its previous authorised representative. Since the same was not available on the record, to complete the record, the assessee filed a duplicate copy of the deed along with a true copy of Form No. 11A duly signed by all the partners. The ITO was not satisfied that the original deed together with Form No. 11A had been filed by the previous tax advisor of the assessee firm.

(3.)THE Assessing Officer did not accept the duplicate copy as an application under S. 184 of the Act. Accordingly, he treated the assessee as an unregistered firm since the application was not filed in time as required under S. 184(4). To this effect, an order was passed on January 20, 1977, which was described by the ITO to be one under S. 185 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal against the order before the AAC who agreed with the ITO that the application in Form No. 11A was not filed and a duplicate was filed by the assessee beyond the period allowed under S. 184(4) and, even accepting the duplicate to be an application as required under the Act. The AAC held that there is no material to be satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making an application before the end of the previous year as required under S. 184(4) of the Act. On this finding, the appeal having been dismissed, the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal.