9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following questions of law : " (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed for fresh registration u/s. 184(8) due to change in the constitution of the firm in Form No. 11A under rule 22(4)(ii) on June 30, 1969, along with the return for the assessment year concerned 1969-70 was well wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tituted on 3rd November, 1967. The application for registration was made on 30th June, 1969. The ITO refused to condone the delay in filing the application and dismissed it. The AAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay against the order under s. 184(4). The Tribunal in further appeal held that the assessee had to apply for fresh registration under s. 184(4) read with s. 184(8). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses to register the firm and falls within s. 185(1)(b) and is, therefore, appealable. The view we have taken is shared by the Gujarat, and the Punjab & Haryana High Courts (see CIT v. Dineshchandra Industries [1971] 100 ITR 660 (Guj) and CIT v. Beri Chemical Industries [1980] 121 ITR 87 (P & H). This view has been commended in the Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga and Palkhivala. The Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication was barred by time. It could, however, be entertained if sufficient cause was shown under the proviso to s. 184(4). (2) In view of our answer to question No. (1), this question does not arise. (3) Sections 184(7) and 184(8) are independent provisions. (4) Appeal lay against the order of the ITO refusing to condone lay and for that reason refusing to register the firm. There will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
