- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 17-8-2004. The appeal was admitted on 17-11-2005, by framing the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in affirming order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 185(5) refusing to grant registration to the respondent firm and treating the assessee firm as URF
(2.) The necessary facts are, that the assessing officer passed the order Annexure 1, under Section 185(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 refusing to grant registration to the firm for the assessment year 1991-92, and has ordered the status of the assessee to be taken as URF (unregistered firm). Against this order, appeal was filed by the assessee, which was allowed, and the assessing officer was directed to allow the claim of registration to the appellant firm. Against this order, appeal was filed by the revenue, which was allowed, and order of the assessing officer, refusing registration was restored. It was found in this order dt. 30-3-2001, that from the material available on record, there is nothing to conclusively prove, that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause to comply with the notice under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). In this order, assessee was not represented thus, the order was passed ex parte.
(3.) It appears, that thereafter the assessee filed the miscellaneous application, which was allowed vide order dated 21-10-2003, and the appeals were restored to original number, and were again heard on merits, and have been decided vide judgment dated 17-8-2004, Annexure 4. In this order Annexure 4, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue, being Appeal No. 2773; which related to the order of Commissioner (Appeals)cancelling the order of the assessing officer passed under Section 185(5) of the Act. Since the present appeal related to this controversy only, we need not to go into the aspect covered by the other Appeal No. 1962, decided by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the learned Tribunal upheld setting aside of cancellation of registration, against which, the revenue is aggrieved.;