JUDGMENT 1. This is an income-tax 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 Section 185(5) and not under Section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 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 Section 144 and not a case where there was deliberate default on the part of the assessee's compelling Assessing Officer to make best judgment assessment order ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the Income-tax Officer refused to grant continuation of registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1983-84 despite the assessee's applying in Form No. 12 within time on the ground that the assessment for the year under consideration was being made under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 was also not completed. In the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 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, the above two questions have been referred to this court for answer. 3. We have heard learned counsel and perused the record. 4. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was correct and uphold the judgment and set aside the view of the Income-tax Officer. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that since the assessee had not complied with the provisions of Section 144 of 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. 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 a contingency is covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 186 of the Act, it is not a fresh case of registration as contemplated in Sub-section (5) of Section 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 question No. 1 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, this question is not required to be answered as the conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 144 of the Act duly existed.