Judgment :- Usha, J. These references are at the instance of the Revenue. The relevant assessment years are 1981-82to 1988-89. ITA Nos. 653 to 656 relating to assessment years 1981-82 to 1984-85 were disposed of by a common order dated 26.8.1993. ITA Nos. 657 to 659 and 809 for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 were disposed of on the same day by another common order. The questions referred for the opinion of this court are as follows: " 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and based on the definition of" dealer', under the Gold (Control) Act, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "it cannot be held that merely because the licence was held in the name of one of the partners, the firm has contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and for the reason stated by the Tribunal, i) the assessee is entitled to registration? ii) the Tribunal is right in law in not confirming the order of the assessing authority withdrawing registration?" 2. Assessee is a partnership firm doing jewellery business. The registration/ continuation of registration originally granted was cancelled by the assessing authority on the ground that licence was in the name of one of the partners and not in the name of the firm and that the firm was carrying on business under the Gold (Control) Act without a licence in his name. Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the First appellate Authority. Even though the matter was taken up in further appeal by the Revenue Tribunal upheld the orders passed by the First appellate Authority, following a decision of a Special Bench in the case of M/s. RavindraEngg. Construction Company (198 ITR 32 (AT)). 3. Both sides submitted before us that the common issue involved in these references is governed by the principle laid down by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Narayanan & Co, v. CIT 1996 (1) KLT 546 = (1997) 223 ITR 209. 4. S.27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 provides that no person shall commence or carry on business as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued in this behalf by the administrator. 4. S.27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 provides that no person shall commence or carry on business as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued in this behalf by the administrator. The term "dealer" is defined under S.2(h) which reads as follows: "(h) dealer means any person who carries on directly, or otherwise, the business of making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing, polishing, buying, selling supplying, distributing, melting, processing or converting, gold, whether for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes - (i) a Hindu undivided family which carries on such business ; (ii) a local authority, company, society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), Co-operative Society, incorporated under any law with respect to cooperative societies, club, firm or other association of persons which carries on such business, Admittedly, in this case, the dealer, namely, the person who is carrying on the business of making, manufacturing etc; of gold is the firm. It is not in dispute that the firm is not having a licence in its name. If that be so, the business is being carried on by the firm in clear violation of the mandatory provisions contained under S.27 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 5. R.7 of Gold Control (Forms, Fees, & Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968 provides that every licence issued or renewed under the Act shall not be saleable or otherwise transferable. In the light of the above, an individual partner who is having a licence under S.27 of the Gold (Control) Act cannot make use of the same for the purpose of conducting the business through a partnership firm. Admittedly, in this case, the partnership in whose favour licence has been issued by the administrator is exploiting the right to conduct the business obtained under the licence through the partnership firm. Such a procedure would certainly come within the second limb of R.7 which provided that the licence is not saleable or otherwise transferable. This aspect was subject matter of consideration by the above mentioned decision of this court in the light of similar provisions under R.6(22) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974. Such a procedure would certainly come within the second limb of R.7 which provided that the licence is not saleable or otherwise transferable. This aspect was subject matter of consideration by the above mentioned decision of this court in the light of similar provisions under R.6(22) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974. This Court took the view that exploiting the licence issued in the name of one of the partners by the partnership firm would amount to 'transfer otherwise' and thus would be in violation of the rules. By applying the same principle also in this case, we find that the contention raised by the Revenue is to be accepted. 6. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. 2 in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Since question No.1 is another facet of question No. 2, we decline to answer question No. 1. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income tax appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.