Short Note : 1. The assessee is a partnership firm. It was granted registration in 1961. The dispute before us relates to assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. For these years the assessee was not treated as a registered firm for the reason that it failed to furnish along with its returns of income declarations in Form No. 12 prescribed under section 184 (7) (ii) of the Act. The assessee all through contended that he filed the requisite declarations along with the returns. The assessee also produced two receipts for showing that the declarations were filed along with the returns. The Income tax Authorities, including the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that mention' of the declarations in the receipts was an interpolation and that the declarations were not filed. The assessee applied to the Tribunal under section 256 (1) for referring the following questions of law to the High Court : "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that the receipt issued to the assessee from the Income-tax Office is interpolated when its office copy was not produced before it ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in refusing renewal of registration to the firm which is genuine and registration to which was allowed till assessment year 1963-64 ? 3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not giving the benefit of doubt of filing the application for registration in Form No.12 with the return and refusing renewal of registration to the firm" ? 2. The Tribunal by its order passed on 4th April, 1972, refused the applications on the ground that the questions raised were essentially questions of fact. Held: As earlier pointed out by us, the contention of the assessee throughout was that it had actually filed declarations in Form No.12 alongwith its returns of income. The finding of the Tribunal that declarations were not filed along with the returns is a pure finding of fact. The question whether the receipts that were issued to the assessee were interpolated or not, is also a question of fact. On the finding that no declarations were filed along with the returns, the Tribunal was clearly justified in refusing to treat the firm as registered for the relevant assessment years. The question of giving any benefit of doubt does not arise. On the finding that no declarations were filed along with the returns, the Tribunal was clearly justified in refusing to treat the firm as registered for the relevant assessment years. The question of giving any benefit of doubt does not arise. If the assesses had not filed the prescribed declarations along' with the returns it was not entitled to be treated as a registered firm. In our opinion, all the questions mentioned in the applications of the assessee are question of fact and the Tribunal cannot be directed to refer them to this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the requirement of section 184 (7) (ii) of the Act that the firm should furnish along with its return of income a declaration in the prescribed form is directory and that it is sufficient if declaration is filed before the assessment. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a ruling of the Patna High Court in C.I.T. v. Sitaram Bhagwandas (102 I.T.R. 560). In this case it was held that the requirement that the prescribed declaration should be filed along with the return is directory and that it is sufficient if the Firm files the declaration before the assessment. This question, however, does not arise in the instant case. It was never the case of the assessee that the declarations, though not filed with the returns, were filed before assessment. The assessee’s contention was only that it had filed the declarations along with its returns. This contention was negatived on facts. The finding is that the declarations were not at all filed. The Tribunal was, therefore, not called upon to examine that the declarations, if filed before assessment, should have been accepted. 102 ITR 560 distinguished. Application rejected.