1985 (10) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to hear the appeal.
2. Interpretation of sections 246 and 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Status classification of the assessee-firm.
4. Appealability of the Income-tax Officer's order under section 184(7).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Hear the Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to condone the delay in filing the declaration under section 184(7). The Tribunal held that no appeal lies against the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 184(7), thus setting aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision.

2. Interpretation of Sections 246 and 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether an appeal against the Income-tax Officer's order under section 184(7) lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246. Mr. Ranka, representing the assessee, argued that the appeal lies under section 246(c) and (j), citing various precedents to support the contention that the status of the assessee-firm as a registered or unregistered firm falls within the ambit of section 246(c).

3. Status Classification of the Assessee-Firm:
The court discussed the definition of "status" under section 2(31) and the Explanation to section 143, which includes the classification of an assessee as a registered or unregistered firm. The court noted that the classification of the assessee's status as an unregistered firm was a matter of dispute and could be appealed under section 246(c).

4. Appealability of the Income-tax Officer's Order Under Section 184(7):
The court considered various judgments, including those from the Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana, Patna, Madhya Pradesh, and Bombay High Courts, which supported the view that an order refusing to condone the delay and thereby affecting the status of the firm is appealable under section 246. The court concluded that the refusal to condone the delay, leading to the assessment of the firm as an unregistered firm, could be questioned in an appeal under section 246(c).

Conclusion:
The court held that the appeal lies under section 246(c) against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to condone the delay in filing the declaration under section 184(7). The court emphasized a harmonious construction of the statute to ensure justice and avoid hypertechnical interpretations. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, confirming that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.