Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), to this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision directing the Income-tax Officer to grant under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the continuation of registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 while disposing of the appeals preferred against assessment orders for these years ?"
(2.) In this case, the assessment years involved are 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.
(3.) The question is about the status of the assessee. The Tribunal has observed that there was no dispute as to the merits of the assessee's claim for continuation of registration because the Tribunal decided the issue for the preceding years in favour of the assessee and for the years under appeal the assessee had complied with the legal requirements regarding the submission of Form No. 12 for continuation of registration. The departmental representative contends that a separate appeal should have been filed challenging the Income-tax Officer's decision refusing registration to the asses-see, whereas in the instant case the point in issue regarding the registration was raised in appeal against the assessment order. On the other hand, the learned representative for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sandersons and Morgans v. ITO [1973] 87 ITR 270. The following observations in our opinion make the position clear (at p. 283) : "The next point that was urged was that the order was under a wrong heading. Section 184(4) provides for an application for registration. Subsection (7) of Section 184 provides, however, that registration granted to any firm for any assessment year shall have effect for every subsequent year provided certain conditions are fulfilled. As a matter of fact no separate order under Section 184(7) is required. It is necessary only to refer to that fact, if it is found after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity that the assessee has not complied with the requirement of Section 184(7). Then at the time of the assessment order by a separate order the Income-tax Officer should record that fact and when the assessee prefers an appeal from the assessment, the assessee is entitled to contend that the finding of the Income-tax Officer is invalid. In view, however, of the fact that there was no appeal either from an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 184, or Sub-section (7) of Section 184, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction.";