9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer u/s 184(4). 2. Justification of the Tribunal's direction to the Income-tax Officer regarding the application for registration. Summary: Issue 1: Competency of Appeal Against the Order of the Income-tax Officer u/s 184(4) The primary question was whether an appeal is competent against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to condone delay u/s 184(4). The Tribunal held that such an appeal was competent, relying on the scheme of sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which prescribe the procedure for registration of a firm. The court noted that the Income-tax Officer's satisfaction or dissatisfaction regarding the genuineness of the firm and its constitution could arise from various causes, including the timeliness of the application. The court also referenced the scheme under the 1922 Act, where appeals against orders refusing registration were competent. The court concluded that there was no justifiable reason for Parliament to depart from this scheme in the 1961 Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that an appeal against the order refusing to condone delay u/s 184(4) was competent. The first question was answered in the negative and against the revenue. Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's Direction to the Income-tax Officer The second question addressed whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to give the assessee an opportunity to file a correct application for registration and to consider it afresh. The court found that the Tribunal was not justified in this direction. The Tribunal should have considered whether there were justifying reasons for the delay and, if so, could have condoned the delay itself. The Tribunal's reliance on a departmental circular was misplaced as it did not apply to the facts of this case. The second question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. Conclusion The court appreciated the assistance rendered by Mr. K. C. Patel, appointed as amicus curiae, and decided that there should be no order as to costs.
|
