9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the appeal filed by the assessee to the AAC against the ITO's refusal to grant continuation of registration for the assessment year 1972-73. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Appeal: The primary issue in this case is whether the appeal filed by the assessee to the AAC, questioning the ITO's decision to refuse continuation of registration for the assessment year 1972-73, was competent. The ITO refused to continue the registration of the assessee firm on the grounds that the application in Form No. 12 was not filed within the allowed time. The AAC held that there was no provision for an appeal against the ITO's order declining continuation of registration, relying on the Madras High Court decision in A.S.S.S. Chandrasekaran & Bros. vs. CIT 96 ITR 711 (Mad). The assessee contended that since it was essentially questioning the assessment made on it as an unregistered firm, it was objecting to the status, making the appeal to the AAC competent under Section 246(c), supported by Explanation 2 to Section 143(3). The Departmental Representative argued that there was no status as 'registered firm' or 'unregistered firm', only the general status of 'firm', making Section 246(c) inapplicable. Judicial Member's View: The Judicial Member held that Explanation 2 to Section 143(3) was specifically for the purpose of that section and could not be extended to other purposes. He noted that the scope of the Explanation was restricted and that an assessee firm assessed as an unregistered firm due to non-filing or late filing of Form No. 12 could not be considered to have been assessed under a different status. He concluded that the appeal to the AAC was not competent under Section 246(c), in line with the Madras High Court decision and the absence of a provision in Section 246 for an appeal against the ITO's order declining to condone the delay in filing the declaration for continuation of registration. Accountant Member's View: The Accountant Member disagreed, stating that if the assessee had filed Form No. 12 along with the return under Section 139(1) or 139(2) with an extension granted by the ITO or taken by the assessee under Section 139(4), it should be regarded as filed in accordance with Section 184(7). He noted that the assessee had filed the return before the period under Section 139(4) expired but had not filed Form No. 12 within the extension period. He opined that there was no delay in filing Form No. 12 and that the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration. He further argued that the appeal was against an order under Section 143(3), making Section 246(c) applicable. He emphasized that 'status' in relation to an assessee firm includes its classification as a registered or unregistered firm, supported by Explanation 2 to Section 143(3). He concluded that the appeal to the AAC was competent. Third Member's Decision: The Third Member considered the arguments and the provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 143(3), which was introduced from 1st April 1971. He noted that the explanation to Section 246(c) does not specifically clarify whether an unregistered firm can be said to have a different status from a registered firm. However, Explanation 2 to Section 143(3) clearly states that 'status' includes classification as a registered or unregistered firm. The Third Member disagreed with the Judicial Member's view that the scope of the classification in Explanation 2 to Section 143(3) was confined to the ITO's power to make a fresh assessment. He held that the explanation to Section 143(3) has a wider application and covers all sub-sections of Section 143(3). He concluded that when an order of assessment under Section 143(3) is the subject of an appeal under Section 246(c), and the assessee objects to the status specified in that assessment, the meaning of 'status' in Section 246(c) should be with reference to Section 143(3). Therefore, the appeal before the AAC was competent. Conclusion: The Third Member answered the question in the affirmative, agreeing with the Accountant Member that the appeal filed before the AAC was competent.
|
