- (1.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
(2.) The present reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69. Assessment was originally completed on the assessee-firm granting it continuation of registration in terms of Section 184(7) of the Act. (The relevant accounting year had ended on November 1, 1967). It was noticed that the assessee had filed an application in Form No. 11 on March 19, 1968, and a copy of partnership deed dated June 8, 1968, and June 23, 1968. From the facts on record, it was gathered that Ashok Kumar, a minor who had been admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firm, had attained majority on April 8, 1967. The date fell in the relevant previous year. Since the firm had not executed a fresh partnership deed in the previous year, the Commissioner of Income-tax, following the decision of this court in Ganesh Lal Laxmi Narain v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 696, under Section 263 of the Act can celled the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 143(3) wherein the assessee has been treated as a registered firm and directed the Income-tax Officer to reframe the assessment by considering the application for registration on the merits.
(3.) The Income-tax Officer made a fresh assessment by treating the asses-see-firm as unregistered. In appeal, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that the minor was also a partner but this was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was then argued that the partner's assessments not having been set aside and they having already been assessed on the basis of the original assessment of the assessee-firm, the firm could not again be assessed by treating it as unregistered. This was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Department filed an appeal to the Tribunal.;