1974 (6) TMI 1 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that no appeal lies from the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the assessee s application for registration as time-barred ? - we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appealability of the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the assessee's application for registration as time-barred.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a partnership concern's application for registration being rejected by the Income-tax Officer as time-barred. The assessee filed an appeal, contending that the rejection was under section 185 and hence appealable. However, the court disagreed, stating that the rejection fell under section 184(4), which requires the application to be made before the end of the previous year. The court clarified that section 184(4) deals with the timing of the application, and if not filed in time, there is no application to be considered under section 185. The court highlighted that the heading of the order as under section 185 does not alter its nature under section 184(4), emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer could refuse to entertain a late application under the law.

Next, the court addressed the argument that the order could be considered under section 185(2), which requires the Income-tax Officer to intimate defects in the application for rectification. The court rejected this argument, stating that section 185(2) pertains to formal defects in a timely application, not to applications filed out of time. The court emphasized that even if the rejection was treated as under section 185(2), it would not be appealable. Therefore, the court concluded that the order was rightly deemed to be under section 184(4), making it non-appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the court answered the question regarding the appealability of the Income-tax Officer's order in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee. The judgment clarified the distinction between sections 184(4) and 185, emphasizing the importance of timely filing of applications for registration and the limitations on appeal rights in such cases. The court awarded costs to the respondent and settled the matter with a counsel's fee of Rs. 250.