ORDER
BY THE COURT:
All these applications made by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act (for short, ‘the Act’), are disposed of by this common order.
2. It appears that assessee was granted registration for the assessment year 1983-84 by assessing officer vide order dated 22-8-1985. Thereafter assessing officer passed order under section 185(10) for the same assessment year and denied registration to the assessee on following grounds.
(i) Partners of the firm comprised of Shri Iqbal Singh, his wife, his daughter and four sons and one daughter-in-law;
(ii) Except as Iqbal Singh others do not have any independent source of income.
This order was valid for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86.
3. Assessee took appeal against these orders and Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 18-3-1995 ruled thus :
“If the assessing officer subsequently found that firm was not genuine then he should have cancelled the registration under section 186(1). If no action under section 186 is taken cancelling the registration, order passed under section 185(1)(b) cannot be held in accordance with law. Once the assessment has been framed under section 143(1), assessing officer could have assumed legitimate jurisdiction under section 143(2)(b) only after obtaining prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In view of the facts the assessee is entitled to registration in accordance with law as it satisfies the requirements of s. 184 for grant of registration under section 185”.
4. This was affirmed by Tribunal in the appeal taken by the department. Further, it was noticed that individual share of the partners of the assessee-firm. Who are specified therein and Form No. 11 was duly filled along with partnership deed and that the registration was granted to the firm after due enquiry by the assessing officer who had felt satisfied that there was a genuine firm in existence.
5. In this view of the matter the dispute between various forum appears to have converged on the genuineness or otherwise of the firm that assessing officer finding it not genuine subsequently after having accorded registration vide order dated 22-8-1985 and Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal reaching a contrary conclusion on facts and in the light of the provisions of s. 186(1).
6. In this background though the question superficially appears to be a mixed question of law and fact but it appears to have been clinched more on factual front than otherwise by two appellate forums finding the assessee-firm as genuine. Apart from this a perusal of provisions of s. 186 also show that registration accorded requires to be cancelled in accordance with the requirements laid down therein and continued registration cannot be denied for a subsequent assessment year for the hack (sic) of it.
7. Having said so, we are not inclined to call for the statement of the case or require the Tribunal to refer the statutory question to this Court for any opinion.
8. The application of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.