Radhakrishnan, J.

The legality of the cancellation of registration of a firm under section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is under challenge in this appeal. Learned single Judge repelled the challenge and aggrieved by the same the assessee has preferred this appeal.

2. The assessee firm consists of five partners consisting of the father and the sons. Registration of the firm was originally granted under section 185(1) on 29-2-1972 on the basis of an application for registration in form No.11A filed on 31-3-1971 along with a certified copy of the deed of partnership. Later Income-tax Officer on examination of the details of the partners on 30-7-1979 and 31-7-1979 respectively noticed that Paul Mathew (father) has forged signatures of three other partners by name Roy P. Mathews, Abraham Paul Mathews and Babu Paul Mathews in the deed of partnership dated 1-7-1970. Further it was also noticed that Roy P. Mathews was made a fullfledged partner with liability for losses, even though he was a minor at the relevant date since his date of birth was 11-7-1952 thereby violating the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Further the officer also noticed that application for registration in form No.11A filed on 31-3-1971 was a forged document since application was signed by all the partners personally. Consequently the registration granted on 29-2-1972 was cancelled by the officer by his order 22-3-1980. Assessee took up the matter in appeal before C.I.T. (Appeals) which was dismissed. The Tribunal on appeal confirmed the order of CIT (Appeals). On a reference the court was called upon to answer the question whether there is a genuine firm as registered in existence and whether the order of cancellation is valid or not. This court in Paul Mathews and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1992) 195 ITR 716 dispose of the matter stating as follows:

“Under S.185(2) of the Act, it is obligatory after 1-4-1971 for the Income tax Officer to intimate defect in the application submitted for registration of the firm and also to give an opportunity to the firm to cure the defect. That alone will ensure “fairness” in action. If notice for cancellation was given under S.186, the assessee could have submitted a proper application for the subsequent years; that is, for the period in which all the partners have become major, they could have submitted a proper application signed by all the partners and also cured the defect. This procedure is not seen adopted by the assessing authority in this case. We are of the view that such procedure should be followed. Then alone there will be a full, proper and effective consideration of the matter which will result in a proper final order being passed in the case. Such a situation has not arisen herein. In the absence of such pre-requisites or preliminary steps, any order passed can only be considered as provisional or tentative but not final or conclusive or binding. We, therefore, decline to answer the question referred to this court but direct the concerned officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee to explain and, thereafter, pass final orders.”

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the directions of this court set aside its order dated 24-6-1982 and directed the assessing officer to given an opportunity to the assessee to explain and file proper applications and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

3. The assessing authority then directed the assessee to cure the defects and to explain the position vide letters dated 29-10-1993, 13-12-1993 and 2-6-1994 Assessee filed written explanations dated 3-12-1993, 29-12-1993 and 23-6-1994 along with applications for registration in form No.11, 11A and 12 signed by all the partners. It also filed an instrument of partnership evidencing the existence of the firm during the accounting period 1970-71 relevant to the assessment year 1971-72. Assessee in the process of curing the defects wanted to substitute the original forged documents