9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (5) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application had to beneficiary filed in Form No. 11. Accordingly, the assessee filed the necessary Form No. 11 on 28th Nov., 1978. Alongwith the letter application the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. The ITO refused the assessee's claim for registration on two grounds. Firstly, he held that the appropriate form for the application for registration was Form No. 11 and not 11A. Secondly, no Form No. 11 was filed up to the due date and there was no ground for condoning the delay. The assessee pleaded before the ITO that Form No.11A was filed well in time and if the ITO considered that it was not the appropriate form he should have given an opportunity to the assessee to rectify that form. This plea was rejected by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Puranik pointed out that the application in Form No. 11A was filed on 20th Oct., 1975 which was well in time. He submitted that it was only a clerical error that Form No. 11 was not filed and, therefore, the delay in filing Form No. 11 should have been condoned and the register allowed. 4. Shri C.P. Joshi, appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the AAC. He submitted that the assessee could not claim acquisition opportunity for rectification of Form No. 11A because application in Form No. 11A was not the proper application in this case. In support of this, Shri Joshi relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Ganga Motor Service vs. CIT(3). 5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The firm constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's belated application for registration under the proviso to s. 184 of the IT Act, 1961 tantamounts to an order under s. 185(1)(b) to the Act and, therefore, acquisition appeal lies to the AAC against such acquisition order under s. 246(j) of the Act. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the assessee that appeal did lie against the order of the ITO on this point to the AAC and the view of the AAC to the contrary cannot beneficiary supported. The decision of the Patna High Court in Ganga Motor Services is not of any assistance to the Revenue because it proceeded on different facts and does not relate to any of the points decided by us. 7. In the result, therefore, we direct the ITO to allow registration to the assessee firm for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
