TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court deems delay order appealable under section 246(j)</h1> The court held that the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to condone the delay in filing the declaration in Form No. 12 should be deemed passed under ... Appeal To AAC, Firm Issues Involved:1. Whether the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to condone the delay in filing a declaration in Form No. 12 under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is appealable under section 246.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Appealability of the Income-tax Officer's Order Refusing Condonation of Delay:The primary issue revolves around whether the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to condone the delay in filing a declaration in Form No. 12 under section 184(7) is appealable under section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court needed to determine if the order was passed under section 184(7), which is not appealable, or under section 185, which is appealable.Contentions and Legal Provisions:- The respondent (assessee) filed a delayed declaration for continuation of registration. The Income-tax Officer refused to condone the delay and treated the assessee as an unregistered firm.- The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who directed the Income-tax Officer to condone the delay and grant registration.- The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the order under section 184(7) was not appealable. The Tribunal, relying on precedent, held the order appealable under section 246(j).- The Revenue sought reference to the High Court, questioning the Tribunal's decision.Statutory Provisions:- Section 184(7): Deals with the continuation of registration for subsequent assessment years, provided certain conditions are met, including timely filing of a declaration.- Section 185(1)(b): Pertains to the refusal of registration for initial applications.- Section 185(3): Addresses the rectification of defects in the declaration for continuation of registration.- Section 246: Lists appealable orders, including those under section 185(1)(b), (2), (3), and (5).Judicial Opinions:- A majority of High Courts have ruled in favor of the appealability of such orders, interpreting the right of appeal liberally.- Precedents: CIT v. Nagarmal Bisheshar Lal, Grafik India v. CIT, CIT (Addl.) v. Chekka Ayyanna, among others, support the appealability under sections 185(1)(b) or 185(3) and section 246(j).- Contrarily, judgments like Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal v. Addl. CIT and CIT v. Pohop Singh Rice Mill held such orders non-appealable under section 184(7).Court's Analysis:- The court analyzed sections 184 and 185, noting the distinction between initial registration applications and declarations for continuation of registration.- It concluded that the refusal to condone delay, effectively refusing registration, falls under section 185(3) and is appealable under section 246(j).- The court disagreed with the view that all refusals of registration fall under section 185(1)(b), emphasizing the distinct procedures for initial registration and continuation under sections 184(7) and 185(3).Conclusion:The court held that the Income-tax Officer's order refusing to condone the delay in filing the declaration in Form No. 12 should be deemed passed under section 185(3) and is appealable under section 246(j). The Tribunal's decision was justified, and the reference was answered in the affirmative.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
