9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer u/s 184(7) is appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner u/s 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Appealability of the Order u/s 184(7) The core issue was whether the order of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) refusing to allow the continuation of registration to the assessee-firm u/s 184(7) is appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) u/s 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITO had refused to condone the delay in filing the declaration required u/s 184(7), leading to the refusal of continuation of registration. The AAC held that no appeal was maintainable as section 184(7) is not included in section 246. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) construed the ITO's order as tantamount to refusal of registration, making it appealable. Contentions: - Revenue's Argument: The learned standing counsel for the revenue argued that the ITO's order was passed u/s 184(7) and since section 246 does not mention section 184(7), no appeal is maintainable. He cited several cases to support this view. - Assessee's Argument: The counsel for the assessee contended that the ITO's refusal to allow continuation of registration should be considered an order u/s 185(1)(b) or 185(3), making it appealable u/s 246(j). He cited relevant case law to support this interpretation. Legal Provisions and Interpretation: - Section 184: Deals with the procedure for filing applications for registration of a firm. - Section 185: Outlines the procedure for the ITO upon receipt of such applications, including inquiries into the genuineness of the firm. - Section 246: Specifies the orders of the ITO that are appealable to the AAC, including orders u/s 185(1)(b), 185(2), and 185(3). The court examined the relevant provisions and concluded that the ITO's order refusing to allow continuation of registration should be treated as an order u/s 185(1)(b) or 185(3). The court reasoned that the ITO's refusal to condone the delay and the subsequent refusal to allow continuation of registration effectively amounted to refusing to register the firm, making the order appealable u/s 246(j). Case Law: - The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Hukumchand and Mannalal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which interpreted the refusal to renew registration as equivalent to refusing to register a firm. - The Gujarat High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dineshchandra Industries supported the view that an appeal against the ITO's refusal to condone the delay and consequently refusing registration was competent. Conclusion: The court held that the ITO's order refusing to allow continuation of registration to the assessee-firm u/s 184(7) should be considered an order u/s 185(1)(b) or 185(3) and is thus appealable u/s 246(j). The reference was answered against the revenue with costs.
|
