9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. To understand the real controversy, we should narrate the facts of the case in brief. 2. The assessment was made by the ITO under section 144 as the assessee had not produced books of accounts etc. He took the status as URF as noted in the assessment order. He also passed an order under section 185 in which he has noted that the assessee filed Form No. 11A. But in the absence of books of account and also due to non-compliance of the assessee, the ITO was not satisfied that there was a genuine firm during the year. Registration was refused. 3. The assessee took up the matter before the CIT (Appeals) in respect of the quantum, opportunity etc. The assessee raised a point regarding the status. It was contended that the status was wrongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate application form was filed. It is submitted that if the facts of the case are properly appreciated, it would be seen that the CIT (Appeals) went wrong in not considering the claim of the assessee in the present context. It is urged, therefore, that the claim of the assessee may be allowed and the authorities below may be directed to allow registration to the firm. 5. The learned Departmental Representative supports the order of the CIT (Appeals) vehemently. The points raised by the CIT (Appeals) are highlighted and it is stressed that the provisions of the law are clear and each section has a specific role to play and if the assessee has chosen not to prefer an appeal on the specific point, relief cannot be allowed under any guise. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "status" includes within its sweep a distinction between a registered firm and unregistered firm. It was held that the right of appeal under section 246(1)(c) against the status would also include status taken as URF. The Hon'ble Patna High Court considered the decisions as ITO v. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash [1979] 117 ITR 594 (All.), Rafeeq Timbers v. CIT [1986] 50 CTR (Ker.) 137. It appears that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Angadi Bros. [1986] 157 ITR 426/[1985] 22 Taxman 578, has expressed a similar view. 7. Section 246 provides that an aggrieved party may file an appeal before the A.A.C. A provision granting right of appeal should be construed liberally. This was the view expressed in Mohan Lal Khemka v. CIT [1971] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le right and deprivation of that right is not to be lightly assumed. The substantive right of appeal conferred upon the assessee by the statute cannot in any way be curtailed or restricted by the language of rules made under subordinate legislative powers -- CCT v. Satanand Giri 1975 Tax LR 203 (Pat.). 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 has, on the facts of that case, held that the Appellate Tribunal should not be unduly influenced by mere procedural technicalities but should deal with the substance of the matter at issue. 10. In the present case before us, as pointed out by the CIT (Appeals), the contention of the assessee was regarding the status taken in the assessment as URF. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
