The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur v. M/S. Sardara Ram Contractor

1 D.B. INCOME TAX REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 13/1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. INCOME TAX REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 13/1992 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURVS. M/S. SARDARA RAM CONTRACTOR. DATE: 26.04.2012 '-HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAINIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sameer Jain with Ms. Mahi Yadav, for theapplicant-Revenue.Mr. J.K. Ranka with Mr. N.K. Baid, for therespondent. BY THE COURT: The Applicant-Revenue has filed anapplication for substitution of legal heirsof respondent, Late Shri Sardara Ram. Theapplication is allowed. Legal heirs ofdeceased-respondent,whosenamesarementioned in Para No. 4 of the application,are substituted in his place.2.With the consent of parties,argumentswereheardandreferenceapplication is being disposed off finally.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Jaipur has filed this Income Tax ReferenceApplication under Section 256(2) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred toas 'the Act') with a prayer that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')may be directed to refer the question of lawframed in the reference application. 4.Brief facts of the case are that therespondent is a registered firm under theprovisions of Indian Partnership Act. It alsoapplied for registration with the Income TaxDepartment and it was registered. There isno dispute between the parties thatassessments of respondent-firm were made forthe assessment years 1974-75 to 1984-85 andlater on, due to some audit objections to theeffect that a minor had been made a fullfledged partner in the firm and that the nameof the father of minor had been putdifferently at different places, theregistrations of the firm for the assessmentyear 1978-79 to 1984-85 were cancelled underSection 186(1) of the Act. The assessee wentin appeals, which were allowed by theappellate authority holding that according toprovisions of Section 186(1) of the Act, aregistration once granted could be cancelledonly if it was found that the firm was notgenuine and not for any technical mistake.The Department filed further appeals beforethe Tribunal, which were decided vide order dated 20.09.1989. However, the appeals forthe assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 werepreferred, wherein the Commissioner of IncomeTax(Appeals) took the view that cancellationof registration under Section 186(1) of theAct was justified. The assessee went inappeals, which were allowed by the Tribunal.Thereafter, applications were filed to makereference in the matter, which were rejected by the Tribunal, therefore, presentapplication has been filed. 5.We have heard learned counsel forthe parties and examined the reasons assignedby the Tribunal for allowing the appealsfiled by the assessee and also examined thereasons assigned by the Tribunal for refusingto refer the reference to this Court andafter considering the same, we are satisfiedthat learned Tribunal was absolutely right innot referring the question formulated by theDepartment for reference to this Court. 6.We find no force in this referenceapplication and the same is, accordingly,dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. Manoj.