9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m ' in an order u/s. 143(3), was not sustainable ? " The facts as stated by the Appellate Tribunal are that the assessee is a firm and was granted registration in the assessment year 1969-70 but for the assessment year under appeal, i.e., 1971-72, the assessee filed declaration in Form No. 12 seeking continuation of registration u/s. 184(7) of the I.T. Act. This declaration was not filed within the prescribed time and an application explaining the reasons for the delay and seeking condonation was filed. The ITO refused to condone the delay and completed the assessment taking the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm. The assessee in its appeal against the order of assessment raised the ground of status as well. The AAC set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Commissioner and the AAC was not competent to direct the ITO to examine the issue again. On this appeal by the Department, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that as the matter of registration has become final after the orders of the Commissioner for the same year the same question cannot be reagitated in another form and in this view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department and it is after this judgment that the assessee submitted an application to the Appellate Tribunal for making a reference to this court and the Tribunal, therefore, has made this reference seeking an answer to the question quoted above. In the same matter, the assessee submitted an application before the Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the application of the assessee for rectification of the order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. It is, therefore, apparent that, now, that the order passed by the ITO refusing to condone the delay and, therefore, refusing to accept the declaration and continue the registration of the firm, has become final, and it is, therefore, apparent that once that order had become final in a subsequent appeal before the AAC, he could not have remanded the case with a fresh direction to state reasons for adopting the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm in an order u/s. 143(3). It was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that, in fact, against the first order of assessment, an appeal was taken to the AAC and the AAC reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Tribunal was right in setting aside this order of the AAC on an appeal preferred by the Department. It is, no doubt, true that a delay of a few days has ultimately resulted in the assessment of the assessee as an unregistered firm and could be said to be a hardship but it is clear that the assessee, when the revision was dismissed, failed to take steps to get that order of the ITO quashed. That not having been done, it is clear that the AAC could not have reopened the question when the question was set at rest by the orders of the Commissioner in revision and the view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, could not be said to be erroneous. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, our answer to the question is in the negative. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
