1979 (1) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules AAC can consolidate appeals under Income Tax Act, 1961. No separate appeals needed for section 185.

The High Court of Calcutta held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not err in consolidating appeals against orders under sections 143 and 185 ... Best Judgment Assessment, Registration Of Firm Issues:Interpretation of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding filing separate appeals against orders under sections 143 and 185 for assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue of whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) erred in entertaining a single appeal against both orders under sections 143 and 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years in question. The assessee, treated as an 'association of persons,' had its registration as a firm refused by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the relevant years. The AAC consolidated the appeals against the assessment orders and the orders refusing registration, ultimately directing the ITO to allow registration. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that separate appeals should have been filed for orders under section 185. The Tribunal held that the Act did not provide for separate appeals against section 185 orders and noted that only one form was prescribed for appeals under the new Act, unlike the previous legislation. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that no fee was payable for filing an appeal to the AAC.The Court distinguished a previous decision under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, as the law and procedure had changed in the current statute, the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 246 of the Act lists appealable orders, including orders under section 185, and Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, specifies the form for appeals to the AAC. Form No. 35 is an omnibus form applicable to all appeals under section 246, allowing for the combination of multiple appeals by striking out irrelevant columns. The Court deemed the Revenue's objections hyper-technical, highlighting that the Act and rules permitted the consolidation of appeals and that the absence of a fee for filing appeals before the AAC made the matter inconsequential. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering the legal question in the negative and in favor of the assessee.In a concurring opinion, Justice C. K. Banerjee agreed with the decision of Justice Dipak Kumar Sen, supporting the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and finding no error in the Tribunal's ruling. The judgment concluded without any order as to costs.