SETHURAMAN J.

The following question has been referred under s . 256(1) of the I.T. Act

"Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to continuation of registration for the assessment year 1970-71 ?" *

The assessee is a firm consisting of four partners, viz., 1. Papanasa Nadar, 2 Paulraj Nadar, 3. Annamalai Nadar, and 4. Sundaraswamy. The shares of each of these partners differed and it is not material for our present purpose. The assessee filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuance of registration. This declaration was signed by the legal representative of the first partner, namely, Papanasa Nadar, who died, and by Paulraj and Annamalai. Sundaraswamy, the fourth partner, did not append his signature to the form. This form was filed on January 7, 1971, before the ITO

By the end of December, 1972, the ITO by a letter dated December 11, 1972, pointed out that the declaration was defective and he afforded an opportunity to the assessee under s. 185(3) of the Act to rectify the defect and resubmit the form duly signed by all the partners of the firm within a period of one month. He pointed out also that if this defect was not rectif