Judgment 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench "A", under Sec.256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act "). The following question of law has been framed by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were correct in allowing the claim of continuation of registration of the firm for the period up to December 10, 1967?" 2. The relevant facts are very brief and can be gathered from the statement of the case itself. The assessment year in question is 1969-70. The assessee-firm consisted of three partners, namely, (1) Sri Jagmandir Das Jain, (2) Shri Ashok Kumar Konodia, and (3) Shri B.L. Kedia. The first two persons retired on December 10, 1967. The business, goodwill, rights, assets and liabilities of the firm remained with Shri B.L. Kedia, who became liable to discharge the liability of the partners. From December 11, 1967, another partnership was formed by Sri B.L. Kedia and Buxiram Kedia. The firm applied for continuation of registration under Sec.184(7) of the Act up to December 10, 1967, the date on which the first partnership ceased to exist. 3. The ITO did not accept the plea of the assessee and refused to continue the registration under Sec.184(7) of the Act. The order of the ITO has been marked as annexure A to the statement of the case. 4. The assessee went up in appeal before the AAC. He agreed with the view taken by the ITO. The order of the AAC has been marked annexure B to the statement of the case. 5. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, the Tribunal having considered all the narrations made in the partnership deed, held that the firm was dissolved after the retirement of the two paruers, namely, on December 10, 1967. According to the Tribunal, it was a case of succession of the firm and continuation of registration claimed for the period up to December 10, 1967, was proper. 6. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal which is well supported by a Bench decision of this court. According to the Tribunal, it was a case of succession of the firm and continuation of registration claimed for the period up to December 10, 1967, was proper. 6. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal which is well supported by a Bench decision of this court. In the case of Pandey and Brothers V/s. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 515 (Pat), in which it was held that Sec.184(7) of the Act provides that where registration is granted to any firm for any assessment year, it shall have effect for every subsequent year, provided that, (i) there is no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership on the basis of which registration was granted, (ii) the firm furnishes along with its return of income for the assessment year concerned, a declaration to that effect in the prescribed form. It was further held that Sec.187(2) provides that, for the purpose of Sec.187, there will be deemed to be a change in the constitution of the firm if one or more of the partners cease to be partners or one or more new partners are admitted or, where all the partners continue, with a change in their respective shares or in the shares of some of them. It is an admitted fact in the instant case that the first firm continued to exist till December 10, 1967. There is, therefore, no error in law in the Tribunals order allowing the claim of continuation of registration of the firm up to the period ending December 10, 1967. 7. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.