1979 (8) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing application for registration under section 184(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling chemicals. The partnership was initially formed by three individuals, and after the death of one partner, the firm was reconstituted with the deceased partner's widow joining as a partner. The issue at hand was the delay in filing an application for registration for the assessment year 1971-72. The firm contended that the delay was due to confusion resulting from the death of the managing partner. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) refused to condone the delay and rejected the application for registration, assessing the firm as unregistered.

The firm appealed to the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) against the ITO's decision not to condone the delay. The AAC held that no appeal was maintainable against such an order. However, the Tribunal, in a second appeal, disagreed with the AAC's decision. The Tribunal opined that the order refusing registration was actually under section 185(1)(b) of the Act, making it appealable. The Tribunal directed the ITO to grant registration to the firm for the assessment year in question.

The matter was then brought before the High Court, where the issue was whether the order refusing to entertain the belated application for registration under section 184(4) was tantamount to an order under section 185(1)(b) and thus appealable. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, citing relevant case law to support its decision. The Court held that the order passed by the ITO refusing to entertain the belated application was indeed under section 185(1)(b) and therefore appealable under section 246(j) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the order refusing registration was appealable. The Court relied on previous judgments and legislative intent to support its reasoning. The judgment was delivered jointly by two judges, J. V. Gupta and B. S. Dhillon, with the latter concurring with the former's analysis and decision.