Delay in Form No. 12 Filing Appealable: Court Upholds Assessee's Rights

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, MP -II Versus Jabalpur Transport Development Co.

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, MP -II Versus Jabalpur Transport Development Co. - [1983] 143 ITR 964 Issues:
- Appealability of an order refusing registration/continuation of registration by the Income-tax Officer on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 12 under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether an order refusing registration/continuation of registration by the Income-tax Officer due to a delay in filing Form No. 12 under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is appealable. The assessee, a registered firm, filed a declaration for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1971-72 after the specified deadline. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) refused continuation of registration due to the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, stating it was not maintainable. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, declaring that the ITO's order was appealable under section 246(j) of the Act.

The relevant sections under consideration were ss. 184(7), 185(3), and 246(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 184(7) mandates that a firm must file a declaration within the specified time to continue registration. The ITO can condone delays if sufficient cause is shown. Section 185(3) outlines the procedure for rectifying defects in the declaration, with consequences if defects are not rectified. Section 246(j) allows for appeals against specific orders of the ITO, including those under section 185(3).

The Court interpreted that the ITO has the discretion to refuse to condone delays in filing declarations, leading to a declaration not in order under section 185(3). Even non-rectifiable defects can result in the ITO refusing continuation of registration. The Court held that orders refusing continuation of registration due to delays fall under section 185(3) and are appealable under section 246(j). The decision was supported by precedents from various High Courts, emphasizing the need for uniformity in interpreting the Income-tax Act. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the ITO's order was appealable, thereby answering the question in the affirmative.

In conclusion, the Court's decision clarified the appealability of orders refusing registration/continuation of registration by the ITO based on delays in filing declarations under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the interplay between sections 184(7), 185(3), and 246(j) and established the appealability of such orders under specific circumstances. The ruling aimed to ensure consistency and uniformity in the interpretation of the Act across different jurisdictions.