JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by OZA C.J.-This is application filed by assessee under section 256(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961. facts necessary for disposal of this application are that assessee sought registration of firm for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 as it is stated that for year 1976-77, registration was granted but for these two years Income-tax Officer refused registration and order was ultimately upheld by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal in its order dated February 12, 1981, found certain facts as stated in para. 2 of order and on basis of all these facts inference was drawn that firm is non- genuine and, therefore, refused registration. Learned counsel for assessee contended that registration is sought under section 184 of Income-tax Act and requirements which authorities are expected to consider are stated in section 185 of Act. Reading these two sections, it does not appear that on facts which have been found by Tribunal, registration could be refused. It is also contended that on facts which have been found as stated in order of Tribunal, it could not be said that partnership is nongenuine and question whether on these findings of fact, registration could be refused in view of section 185 is question of law that arises. It was also contended that on these facts whether inference that partnership is genuine or non-genuine also is question of law and it was, therefore, contended that Tribunal was not right in refusing to make reference. Learned counsel relied on decision of this court in Murlidhar Kishangopal v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 628 (MP), where practically same defects as are pointed out by Tribunal have been held to be not enough for rejection of application for registration of firm. Learned counsel for Revenue, on other hand, contended that findings arrived at by Tribunal are findings of fact and, therefore, Tribunal was right in maintaining order passed by Income-tax Officer. It is apparent that findings which have been arrived at by Tribunal are findings of fact but whether on these facts prayer for registration could be rejected in view of sections 184 and 185 of Act as these are only two sections which deal with registration of firms, it could not be said that this is not question of law. On these facts whether registration could or could not be refused apparently is question of law. It is also plain that on facts found whether inference that partnership is non-genuine could or could not be drawn is also question of law. In view of these circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, this application deserves to be allowed. application is allowed. It is directed that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal shall state case and refer following questions to this court for answers: " (1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in maintaining order refusing registration? (2) Whether, on facts found by Tribunal, inference that firm is non-genuine could be drawn and registration could be refused in light of language of sections 184 and 185 of Indian Income-tax Act? (3) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, every assessment year is separate assessment year and order under section 185 is necessary to be passed for each assessment year? " In circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. *** ASHARAM SABOO & SONS v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX