JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The applicant-assessee had earlier filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 92 of 1985 in this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In that case, this court passed the order on September 4, 1987 (see [1988] 171 ITR 371), directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the indicated questions of law for opinion of this court. In compliance with this order, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the undernoted two questions of law for our opinion (at page 373) ; " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee was bound to make a fresh application for registration under Section 184(8) of the Act and that the firm was not entitled to renewal of registration up to August 14, 1976 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that even if some of the partners had been assessed on their respective shares of income, the assessee was rightly assessed as an unregistered firm for the whole accounting year ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant-assessee is a firm and the assessment year in question is 1977-78 for which the accounting year ended on Diwali, 1976. This firm consisted of three partners, namely, Shri Ramsahai, Shri Nathulal and Shri Vimalchand. The firm was dissolved on August 14, 1976, and the assets and liabilities of this firm were taken over by one of the partners, Shri Ramsahai. The assessee filed two separate returns, one for the period up to August 14, 1976, in the status of a registered firm, and the other from August 15, 1976, till Diwali end in the status of an unregistered firm. On October 24, 1976, a partnership deed was executed by Shri Ramsahai, Shri Nathulal, Shri Vimalchand, Shri Prayagdatt and Smt. Dhapubai. In that deed, it was mentioned that the firm shall be deemed to have come into existence from August 15, 1976. The assessee filed an application for continuation of its registration for the period up to August 14, 1976. On October 24, 1976, a partnership deed was executed by Shri Ramsahai, Shri Nathulal, Shri Vimalchand, Shri Prayagdatt and Smt. Dhapubai. In that deed, it was mentioned that the firm shall be deemed to have come into existence from August 15, 1976. The assessee filed an application for continuation of its registration for the period up to August 14, 1976. The Income-tax Officer held that there was a change in the constitution of the firm and, therefore, the assessee should have applied for fresh registration in Form No. 11-A. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, rejected the application and made a single assessment for the aforesaid two periods treating the assessee as an unregistered firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal also took the same view and held that the assessee was rightly assessed as an unregistered firm for the whole period. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The orders passed by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal are marked as annexures "A", "B" and "C", respectively. Copies of the dissolution deed and partnership deed were placed on record as annexures "D" and "E", respectively. The Tribunal did not refer the question as a result of which the assessee filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 92 of 1985. The direction was made by this court. This is how the Tribunal referred the aforesaid two questions. 3. We have heard Shri S. C. Bagdiya, learned counsel for the applicant/ assessee, and Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant/ Department. 4. Right at the threshold counsel for the parties pointed out that question No. 1 does not reflect the true controversy and as such the question requires to be reshaped and reformulated. They also pointed out that if the amended question is answered in favour of the assessee, then the answer to question No. 2 becomes unnecessary and can be left without any answer as superfluous. 5. They also pointed out that if the amended question is answered in favour of the assessee, then the answer to question No. 2 becomes unnecessary and can be left without any answer as superfluous. 5. On agreement by both the sides, we reshape and reformulate ques tion No. 1 as under ; " Whether, on the factss and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was required to be assessed till August 14, 1976, as a registered firm and thereafter from August 15, 1976, till Diwali end as an unregistered firm and as such whether the Tribunal was not justified in assessing as an unregistered firm for the whole accounting year despite two broken returns, one till August 14, 1976, and the other from August 15, 1976, till Diwali end ?" 6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal upheld the assessment as unregistered firm on the basis of the Full Bench decision of this court in Girdharilal Nannelal v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 529 which stands reversed by the apex court by the decision in Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 761. He further submits that the assessee, as held in Ramchand Moolchand v. CIT [1989] 179 ITR 1 (MP), was required to be assessed as a registered firm till August 14, 1976, and thereafter from August 15, 1976, till Diwali end as an unregistered firm. 7. In view of the decision of this court in Ramchand Moolchand's case [1989] 179 ITR 1, counsel for the Department was unable to submit anything substantial in oppugnation. 8. In the aforesaid decision, this court took the view as under (page 3): " On the question as to whether the firm could be granted renewal of registration for the period from April 1, 1976, to August 25, 1976, the matter, in our opinion, is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 761 (SC). In view of that decision, it must be held that the firm would be entitled to renewal of registration from April 1, 1976, to August 25, 1976, and that the firm would be assessed as a registered firm till August 25, 1976, and as an unregistered firm for the remaining part of the previous year. " 9. In view of that decision, it must be held that the firm would be entitled to renewal of registration from April 1, 1976, to August 25, 1976, and that the firm would be assessed as a registered firm till August 25, 1976, and as an unregistered firm for the remaining part of the previous year. " 9. It is thus clear that the Tribunal committed an error in making the assessment as an unregistered firm for the whole accounting period. The assessee was required to be assessed as a registered firm till August 14, 1976, and as an unregistered firm for the remaining period of the accounting year, i.e., August 15, 1976, till Diwali end. 10. The point thus stands concluded by the decision rendered by this court. 11. In the circumstances, we answer the reshaped and reformulated question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In view of this answer, no further answer is required to be recorded on question No. 2 as contended by the parties and noted above. 12. The question is, therefore, answered as noted above and this case is disposed of finally but without any order as to costs. 13. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary. 14. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.