- (1.) KANHAYA Lal Ram Chand was granted registration for the assessment year 1970-71. The Revenue challenged the registration on the basis that the so-called sub-partnership was not genuine. Ultimately, the matter came to this court in Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1975 and it was held that the sub-partnership between Kanhya Lal and Ram Chand was not genuine and thus was not entitled to registration. This case is reported as CIT v. Kanhayalal Ram Chand [1979] 119 ITR 377.
(2.) SINCE initial registration was granted for the assessment year 1970-71, the firm applied for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1971-72 and continuation of registration was granted. This matter, at the instance of the Revenue, went up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, and since by that time the decision of this court for the assessment year 1970-71 had not been rendered, the Tribunal also decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal declined the reference and on a petition filed by the Revenue under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), this court in Income-tax Case No. 22 of 1977, by order dated February 27, 1984 (CIT v. Kanhaya Lal Ram Chand (No. 2) [1989] 179 ITR 253 (infra)), directed the Tribunal to refer the following question : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the opinion of the High Court in its judgment dated December 10, 1976, in Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1975 [1979] 119 ITR 377 (P and H), the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to a finding in its favour under Section 184 (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 ?"
(3.) BY the time the aforesaid order was passed, this court had found the sub-partnership to be not genuine and, therefore, not entitled to registration for the assessment year 1970-71.;