Judgment 1. In this case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court : "Whether, in the absence of any application for renewal of registration by the assessee firm for the assessment year 1950-51, it was incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to give a notice under the proviso to Sec.23(4) of the Act before determining the status of the firm as an unregistered firm in the assessment for that year made under Sec.23(4) of the Act?" 2. The assessee is a firm consisting of four partners. For the assessment year 1947-48 and 1948-49 the assessee was assessed in the status of an unregistered firm, as no application for registration was made under Sec.26A of the Act. For the assessment year 1949-50 the firm filed an application for registration under Sec.26A of the Act in the prescribed form. The Income-tax Officer accepted the application and registered the firm "for the assessment for the year ending on 31-3-1950" and endorsed the following certificate on the instrument of partnership : "This instrument of partnership has this day been registered with me, the Income-tax Officer for Arrah in the province of Bihar under Sec.26A, Income-tax Act, 1922, and this certificate of registration shall have effect for the assessment for the year ending on 31-3-1950." 3. For the assessment year 1950-51 the Income-tax Officer served upon the assessee a notice under Sec.22(2) of the Act calling upon the assessee for a return of the income within 35 days of the receipt of the notice. But the assessee firm did not file the return of its income, nor did it apply for extension of time for filing the return. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, proceeded to make an assessment under Sec.23(4) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee to be Rs. 20,000/-. No application for renewal of registration was made before the Income-tax Officer on behalf of the assessee firm, and therefore the Income-tax Officer proceeded to determine the assessment of the firm for 1950-51 in the status of an "unregistered firm". Against the order of the Income-tax Officer an appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer should have given a notice prescribed by the proviso to Sec.23(4) before treating the assessee as an unregistered firm. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer an appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer should have given a notice prescribed by the proviso to Sec.23(4) before treating the assessee as an unregistered firm. This contention was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who allowed the appeal and ordered the Income-tax Officer "to treat the firm as registered subject to due compliance by the firm of the formalities of such registration". The Income-tax Officer appealed to the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was Contended for the Income-tax Officer that no notice, under Sec.23(4) of the Act was necessary as registration has not been granted for the assessment year 1950-51 and consequently the question of cancelling such registration did not arise. The Tribunal accepted the argument advanced by the Income-tax Department and set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer treating the firm as an unregistered firm. 4. On behalf of the assessee Mr. Mazumdar put forward the argument that a duty was imposed on the Income-tax Officer to give a notice required under the proviso to Sec.23(4) of the Act before treating the assessee firm as an unregistered firm. In our opinion, this argument is without substance. It is Clear in the first place that the firm was registered under Sec.26A only for the assessment year 1949-50. This is borne out by the certificate granted by the Income-tax Officer and endorsed on the Instrument of Partnership under Rule 4(1) which has already been quoted. It is clear, therefore, that the registration granted by the Income-tax Officer was effective only for the assessment year 1949-50 and the registration has no effect or force for the assessment year 1950-51. It is also the admitted position that for the assessment year 1950-51 the assessee firm made no application for renewal of the certificate. Rule 5 of the Indian Income-tax Rules makes provision that a certificate of registration granted under Rule 4 shall have effect only for the assessment to be made for the year mentioned therein, Rule 6 provides that any firm to whom a certificate of registration has been granted under Rule 4 may apply to the Income-tax Officer to have the certificate of registration renewed for a subsequent year. The rule further enacts that such application shall be signed personally by all the partners of the firm and should be accompanied by a certificate in the form set out in the rule. Rule 6-A provides that on receipt of an application under Rule 6 the Income-tax Officer may, if he is satisfied that the application is in order and that there is a firm in existence constituted as shown in the Instrument of Partnership, grant to the assessee a certificate in the prescribed form. If the Income-tax Officer is not so satisfied he is required, to pass an order in writing refusing to renew the registration of the firm. In the present case it is admitted that the assessee firm did not make an application in writing under Rule 6 for the renewal of the registration. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that his client intended to make a written application for the renewal of the registration but could not do so because the case was remanded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the fact remains that no written application was made as required by Rule 6, and in the absence of a written application no question could arise for renewal of registration or cancellation of registration on the part of the Income-tax authorities. In this context it is necessary to bear in mind the principle that the registration of the firm under the Income-tax Act is not a general right but is a mere privilege given to the firm in order to enable the individual partners to get the benefit of the lower rates of assessment applicable, and if the firm desires to take advantage of this privilege, it must conform strictly to the requirements of Sec.26A and the rules made under Sec. 59. (See the decision of this Court in -- Khimji Walji & Co. V/s. Commr. of Income-tax, B. & O., AIR 1954 Pat 396 (A). It is, therefore, manifest that in the present Case the Income-tax Officer was not bound to give a notice under the proviso to Sec.23(4) of the Act before determining the status of the firm as an unregistered, firm for the assessment year 1950-51. It follows that the question referred to the High Court must be answered in favour of the Income- tax Department and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-.