1990 (2) TMI 106 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against refusal of renewal of registration to a firm under the Income Tax Act.
2. Appealability of the order passed under section 184(7).
3. Whether the Form No. 12 sent by the assessee to the Revenue was received and its implications on the registration renewal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee appealed against the order passed by the AAC, challenging the refusal of renewal of registration to the firm by the ITO. The appellant contended that Form No. 12 was duly sent under postal certificate, but the ITO refused renewal based on non-receipt of the form. The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the UPC receipt provided by the appellant could not be relied upon as the ITO did not receive Form No. 12. The appeal before the ITAT was against the rejection of the first appeal, where the appellant reiterated the arguments made earlier. The appellant cited relevant case law to support their position that the Form sent by UPC should be considered as received by the Department.

2. The issue of appealability of the order passed under section 184(7) was raised by the Revenue. The Revenue argued that the order was not appealable under section 246 as it existed at the relevant time. The appellant's counsel referenced case law to establish that the order under section 184(7) was indeed appealable. The ITAT analyzed the provisions of the Income Tax Act and relevant case law to determine that the order passed by the ITO refusing renewal of registration was appealable under section 246(1)(j). The objection raised by the Revenue was deemed valid but lacked merit based on the legal interpretations provided by the ITAT.

3. The crucial issue revolved around the receipt of Form No. 12 sent by the assessee to the Revenue. The ITAT examined whether the Form sent by UPC could be presumed as received by the addressee. The ITAT referred to case law to establish that the posting of a valid return within the prescribed time under certificate of posting was sufficient evidence of filing. The ITAT concluded that the Form was sent by the assessee and received by the Revenue, based on the evidence presented. The ITAT emphasized that in cases where doubt exists about the receipt of the form, the ITO should provide an opportunity to rectify the defect, especially when the existence of a genuine firm is not in doubt. As a result, the ITAT vacated the finding under challenge and remanded the issue to the ITO for further processing in accordance with the observations provided.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in matters concerning registration renewal under the Income Tax Act.