JUDGMENT
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion to this court :
"Whether in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 the Tribunal has been in error in holding that the Income-tax Officer can derive mandate from Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act only in respect of the orders passed under Section 185(1)(a) of the Act and once the provisions of Section 185(1)(b) are invoked Section 186(1) of the Act simply cannot be brought to play any role ?"
2. Briefly stated the facts in the present case are as follows :
3. The respondent is a firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer rejected the application filed by the respondent for grant of registration on the ground that it had not filed information about formation of partnership to its constituent and further that the information was given to the State Bank of India, as late as on September 25, 1975, though the instrument was executed on December 26, 1973, incorporating certain changes. The order passed under Section 185(1)(b) of the Act was reversed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration. This order was accepted by the Revenue. The registration was granted. Subsequently, proceeding under Section 186(1) of the Act was initiated by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 to 1978-79 and vide order dated March 30, 1982, the Income-tax Officer had cancelled the registration for all these years. In the present reference we are only concerned with the assessment year 1974-75. The order cancelling registration was challenged by the respondent in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He allowed the appeal by relying on a decision of the Assam High Court in the case of Rameswar Goenka v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 421. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed.
4. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.
5. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the provision of Sections 185 and 186 operate in different fields. While under Section 185 registration is to be granted, under Section 186 it can be cancelled on the happening of the circumstances, mentioned therein. The proposition tendered by learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be disputed, but the provision of Section 186 of the Act cannot be invoked by the assessing authority in case where the registration has been granted in compliance with an appellate order. The judicial doctrine as also the hierarchy is to be followed. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner vacating the order of cancellation of registration passed under Section 186(1) of the Act.
6. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.