9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceeding was issued to the assessee. In the course of the assessment proceeding, the Income-tax Officer refused continuation of registration to the firm. He, therefore, treated it as an unregistered firm and passed assessment order accordingly. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing continuation of the status of a registered firm as also against the quantum of assessment filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The latter held that the (renewal of) registration had been wrongly refused to the assessee. He, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the Income-tax Officer by which the status of the assessee had been taken as that of an unregistered firm. The Department being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at section 246(c) provides for an appeal where the assessee is aggrieved by an order in regard to the status under which he is assessed. The expression " status " encompasses undoubtedly situations where the assessee is an individual, Hindu undivided family and other categories. Some of the categories are those mentioned in section 2(31) of the Act. Therein a person has been said to include (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority, and (vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses. Sub-clause (7) thus indicates that the categories are not exhaustiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation (2) to section 143, there was some scope for ambiguity that led to the decisions of various High Courts on two divergent lines, but after the introduction of Explanation (2) to section 143, there should be no controversy about the question in regard to the scope of section 246(c). In our view, therefore, an order passed under section 184(7) refusing to continue the registration would be appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Learned senior standing counsel submitted that the view propounded by Jha J. in the case of Madhur Jalpan [1983] 143 ITR 351 (Pat) would render the provision of section 246(j) redundant, inasmuch as clause (c) would cover all cases of determination of status. This submission was advanced before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
