9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) against the Income-tax Officer's (ITO) order declining continuation of registration. 2. Interpretation of relevant provisions under sections 184(7), 185(3), 185(4), and 246(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Appeal to the AAC: The primary issue was whether the appeal to the AAC against the ITO's order dated September 5, 1975, which declined to grant continuation of registration to the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, was competent. The ITO had refused continuation of registration because the declaration in Form No. 12 was filed late and without satisfactory explanation for the delay. The AAC, however, held that there was no delay and directed the ITO to allow continuation of registration. The Revenue contended that the ITO's order was not appealable. 2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions: The court examined sections 184(7), 185(3), 185(4), and 246(j) to determine whether the ITO's order was appealable. - Section 184(7): It states that once registration is granted to a firm for any assessment year, it continues for subsequent years provided there is no change in the constitution of the firm, and a declaration in Form No. 12 is furnished within the prescribed time. The ITO can allow a late declaration if satisfied that the delay was due to sufficient cause. - Section 185(3): This section mandates that if the ITO finds the declaration defective, he must inform the firm, giving it a month to rectify the defect. If not rectified, the ITO can declare that the registration will not be effective for the relevant assessment year. - Section 246(j): Lists the orders of the ITO that are appealable, including those under section 185(3). The court had to decide if the ITO's refusal to condone the delay in filing Form No. 12 constituted an order under section 185(3), making it appealable under section 246(j). Analysis and Judgment: The court determined that section 184(7) does not require the ITO to pass an order for continuation of registration; it automatically continues if conditions are met. The delay in filing Form No. 12 is not a "defect" under section 185(3) that can be rectified by the assessee. Instead, it involves the ITO's discretion, which cannot be appealed under section 185(3). The court supported its decision by referencing similar judgments from the Madras High Court (A. S. S. S. S. Chandrasekaran & Bros. v. CIT), Allahabad High Court (Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal v. Addl. CIT), and Orissa High Court (New Orissa Traders v. CIT), which held that refusal to condone delay in filing declarations is not appealable. Contrary decisions from the Gujarat High Court (CIT v. Dineshchandra Industries), Andhra Pradesh High Court (Addl. CIT v. Chekka Ayyanna), and Punjab and Haryana High Court (CIT v. Beri Chemical Industries) were considered but not followed. The court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory and must be explicitly provided by law. Conclusion: The court concluded that the ITO's order refusing to condone the delay in filing Form No. 12 does not fall under section 185(3) and is not appealable under section 246(j). The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee. There was no order as to costs, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Tribunal.
|
