H.S. AHLUWALIA, J.M. By this application presented on 26th Sept., 1986, CIT requested Tribunal to state case and refer following questions, said to be question of law, arising out of its order dt. 25th July, 1986 in ITA No. 80/Chandi/85, for opinion of High Court under s. 256 (1) "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessment framed under s. 143 (1) becomes non est when reopened under s. 143(2)(a)? Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in allowing continuation of registration under s. 184(7) even though declaration in form No. 12 was filed after framing of assessment under s. 143(1)?" We have heard representatives of parties at length in this matter and, to our mind, no reference in this case is called for. facts relating to this application are that assessee filed its return of income and claimed its status as registered firm. Registration had earlier been granted to assessee who had not put in application in Form No. 12. Accordingly ITO made assessment under s. 143(1) in status of unregistered firm, where after assessee put in application under s. 143(2) and assessment was reopened on question of status. During reopened proceedings, assessee's contention was that application for continuation of registration had already been given by assessee but to avoid any further complication, assessee had put in another application for continuation of registration and prayed for condonation of delay in filing of same. ITO rejected assessee's prayer and again assessed assessee as unregistered firm. On appeal, AAC was of opinion that continuation of registration should be allowed to assessee. dispute came up in second appeal before Tribunal, which upheld decision of AAC. Now although certain disputes are over law relating to right of assessee to claim continuation of registration after assessment had been under s. 143(1) in pursuance of application filed under s. 143(2) during proceedings (where application was made for continuation of registration) which may involve legal disputes but ultimate findings of AAC and Tribunal was that second application for continuation had been given only with view to avoid any controversy regarding any giving of application in first instance. Apart from that Tribunal had held that partners of assessee firm had already been assessed on income from firm and, therefore, registration could not ordinarily be refused to it. All these are facts regarding which there is no controversy. Only on technical ground that assessee had put in application for continuation of registration after assessment had already been made under s. 143(1), registration was sought to be denied to assessee but then AAC and Tribunal had chosen to condone delay in filing of application which was matter within their discretion. This was alone in relation to grant of registration which ordinarily should not be denied to assessee because there is no allegation that genuine firm had not come into existence. In this background, questions which relate to purely technical issues should not be referred because there are corresponding decisions in favour of assessee which lay down that if share income of partners of firm had been taken in their individual assessments, registration cannot be denied to firm. Consequently, we are of opinion that no reference in matter is necessary. In result, reference application is dismissed. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BRIGHT MACHINE TOOLS CORPORATION