JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : This is an IT reference at the instance of the Revenue and the following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this Court : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right to hold that statutory notice of 14 days was required to be given to the assessee when the order refusing continuation of registration was under s. 185(5) and not under s. 186 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law to hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that it was a case of mere passing of assessment order under s. 144 and not a case where there was deliberate default on the part of assessee compelling AO to make best judgment assessment order ? 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the ITO refused to grant continuation of registration to the assessee firm for asst. yr. 1983-84 despite assessees applying in Form No. 12 within time on the ground that the assessment for the year under consideration was being made under s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 and that the assessment for asst. yr. 1983-84 was also not completed. In the appeal, the Dy. CIT(A) found that the statutory notice of 14 days was not given to the assessee before refusing continuation of registration to it. In the second appeal, the Tribunal upheld his order on the same ground. Hence, this reference. Accordingly, above two questions have been referred to this Court for answer. 3. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. 4. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Dy. CIT was correct and upheld the judgment and set aside the view of the ITO. The learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that since the assessee had not complied with the provisions of s. 144 of the Act because the notice given by the assessing authority was not complied with by the assessee and no return was filed by him, therefore, the assessing authority was justified in refusing the registration. It may be relevant to mention here that it was a case of continuation of registration and it was not a case of application for registration for the first time. Such contingency is covered by sub-s. (2) of s. 186 of the Act. It may be relevant to mention here that it was a case of continuation of registration and it was not a case of application for registration for the first time. Such contingency is covered by sub-s. (2) of s. 186 of the Act. It is not a fresh case of registration as contemplated in sub-s. (5) of s. 185. It is a case of continuation of registration or to cancel or continue the registration. 5. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified and we answer the question No. 1 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. So far as the question No. 2 is concerned, this question is not required to be answered as the conditions for invoking the provisions of s. 144 of the Act duly existed.