9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner is maintainable against an order passed under section 184(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The case involves a partnership firm that had the benefit of registration in previous years but failed to apply for fresh registration as required under section 184(8) of the Act for the year 1976-77 due to a reconstitution of the firm. The firm submitted a memorandum stating the change in constitution and admission of new partners, with supporting documents filed in time. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the documents as a valid application under section 184 of the Act. Consequently, the firm was treated as unregistered, leading to an order passed on January 20, 1977, which the Income-tax Officer described as under section 185 of the Act. The firm appealed this decision before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, stating that the application was not filed within the required period under section 184(4) and lacked sufficient cause for the delay. The firm then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which relied on precedent to dismiss the appeal, citing that the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable against such an order. Subsequently, the firm sought a reference under section 256(2) of the Act to the High Court, posing the question of law regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The High Court, referring to previous decisions, emphasized that no appeal lies against an order refusing to accept a declaration beyond the allowed period without sufficient cause, as it does not fall under section 185(3) of the Act. The refusal to accept a duplicate copy of an application as required under section 184(4) does not grant the right to appeal under section 246(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable against the order passed under section 184(4) of the Act. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative against the assessee, indicating that there would be no order as to costs. Judge J. M. Mahapatra agreed with the judgment.
|
