JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. In compliance with the directions issued by this court on September 21, 1984, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 179 of 1981, presented by the applicant-assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the undernoted questions of law, arising out of the orders passed in ITA Nos. 570 and 571/ (IND) of 1979, for our opinion : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in maintaining the order of refusing registration ? (ii) Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal, an inference that the firm is non-genuine could be drawn and registration could be refused in the light of the language of Sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, every assessment year is a separate assessment year and an order under Section 185 is necessary to be passed for each assessment year ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee applied for registration of the firm under Section 185 of the Act on March 29, 1974, for the assessment year 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer refused registration on March 20, 1978, on as many as nine grounds as contained in the statement of the case (annexure "A"). The assessee filed Appeals Nos. UA-76 and UA-80/78 of 1979 for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. These appeals were dismissed on March 27, 1979 (annexure "B"). The assessee thereafter filed second appeal before the Tribunal, registered as ITA Nos. 570 and 571/(IND) of 1979 for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The appeals were dismissed on April 11, 1980. The assessee then filed applications registered as RA Nos. 134 and 135/(IND) of 1980. These applications were rejected on February 12, 1981. The applicant-assessee filed Miscellaneous Application No. 12/(IND) of 1986 arising out of RA Nos. 134 and 135/(IND) of 1980. These miscellaneous applications were disposed of on September 16, 1987. The applicant had filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 179 of 1981 in which this court passed the order on September 21, 1984, and directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions. This is how the Tribunal has referred the questions, as noted above. 3. These miscellaneous applications were disposed of on September 16, 1987. The applicant had filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 179 of 1981 in which this court passed the order on September 21, 1984, and directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions. This is how the Tribunal has referred the questions, as noted above. 3. We have heard Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee, and Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant/ Department. 4. As regards questions Nos. 1 and 2, we find that the Income-tax Officer refused registration of the firm on as many as nine grounds catalogued in the statement of case and on that basis held that the firm was not genuine. The Tribunal considered the factual matrix and on appreciation of facts and features concluded as under : " If a genuine partnership had come into existence, at least some one must have been moved in this behalf. The entertainment tax authorities would not accept change of the proprietor unless intimation had been sent to them. We specifically asked the representative of the assessee to point out one single circumstance that might show that apart from the fact of 16th April being the date noted in the partnership, there was any other documentary evidence of this partnership having come into existence and started carrying on the business on that day, but he could not point out to any such thing. In these circumstances, we are afraid, we are of the view that a genuine partnership did not come into existence on the date on which it purports to have been entered into. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the decision arrived at by the authorities below and dismiss these appeals." 5. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects. This being so it is neither proper nor permissible to go into the facts. In Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 720 (SC), it is held that the court is not justified in going into the facts itself when the Tribunal had considered all the aspects. It is also held therein that the question whether the firm is genuine or not is a question of fact. In Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 720 (SC), it is held that the court is not justified in going into the facts itself when the Tribunal had considered all the aspects. It is also held therein that the question whether the firm is genuine or not is a question of fact. In Bhagwan Cloth Stores v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 539 (MP), it is held that the question of genuineness of a firm is a question of fact and cannot be agitated in a reference, It is also held that as the Tribunal had found that no genuine firm had come into existence, the firm is not entitled to registration. 6. Considering the aforesaid finding, which is not shown to be perverse, and taking into account the legal position as laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we find that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are required to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 7. As regards question No. 3, it is not disputed before us that every assessment year is a separate assessment year and an order under Section 185, in regard to a firm, is required to be passed for each assessment year. 8. Section 185(1)(a) and (b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides as under : " 185. Procedure on receipt of application. -- (1) On receipt of an application for the registration of a firm, the Assessing Officer shall inquire into the genuineness of the firm and its constitution as specified in the instrument of partnership, and - (a) if he is satisfied that there is or was during the previous year in existence a genuine firm with the constitution so specified, he shall pass an order in writing registering the firm for the assessment year ; (b) if he is not so satisfied, he shall pass an order in writing refusing to register the firm." 9. In view of the aforesaid position, we answer question No. 3 also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as we hold that every assessment year is a separate assessment year and an order under Section 185 is required to be passed for each assessment year. 10. In the result we answer all the three questions in the affirmative. The answer of questions Nos. 10. In the result we answer all the three questions in the affirmative. The answer of questions Nos. 1 and 2 thus goes against the assessee and in favour of the Department and answer of question No. 3 goes in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 11. This reference application is disposed of in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. 12. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal.