9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under section 184 and section 185 of the Income-tax Act for registration of a partnership firm. 2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in entertaining applications beyond the prescribed time limit. 3. Determination of the correct section under which the Income-tax Officer's order was passed. 4. Maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Orissa involves a case where the assessee, a partnership firm, applied for registration beyond the prescribed time limit. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application on the grounds of delay, stating that although the firm was genuine, registration could not be granted due to the late submission. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision, emphasizing that the rejection was based on section 184 of the Income-tax Act, not section 185, as erroneously indicated. The Tribunal highlighted that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application due to the delay, as per the provisions of section 184(4). The Court referenced the provisions of section 184 and section 185 of the Act. Section 184(4) mandates that the application for registration must be made before the end of the previous year, with a provision for late applications under certain conditions. The Court also considered the procedure outlined in section 185, emphasizing that formal defects in a timely application can be rectified, but the section does not cover applications submitted beyond the time limit, which falls under section 184(4). The Court cited decisions from the Madras High Court to support the view that rejection of an application due to delay constitutes an order under section 184(4) and not section 185. Regarding the appeal process, the Court clarified that an appeal is only permissible for orders specified in the statute. As per section 246 of the Act, an order refusing registration under section 185 is appealable. However, since the Income-tax Officer's decision was under section 184(4), the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was deemed incompetent. Consequently, the Tribunal also lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, rendering the reference to the High Court incompetent. Therefore, the Court discharged the reference, highlighting that no costs were to be awarded. Both judges, N. K. Das and R. N. Mishra, concurred with the judgment, affirming the dismissal of the reference due to the incompetence of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal based on the incorrect section under which the Income-tax Officer's order was passed.
|
