Assessee firm's registration continued despite late filing; Tribunal upholds AAC's decision citing inadvertence.

The Tribunal allowed the continuation of registration for the assessee firm for the assessment year 1974-75, despite the delay in filing the declaration. The AAC's decision to condone the delay was upheld, citing inadvertence by the counsel as the reason for the delay, without any fraudulent intent. The Tribunal held that an appeal can be made against an order under s. 184(7) by the ITO, rejecting the Revenue's arguments against the sufficiency of the explanation for the delay.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against refusal of continuation of registration under s. 184(7)
2. Sufficiency of explanation for delay in filing declaration for continuation of registration

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the AAC directing the ITO to allow continuation of registration to the assessee firm for the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee firm, M/s. Janta Finance and Land Enterprises Sangrur, filed a declaration in form No. 12 after the due date, seeking condonation of delay. The ITO rejected the explanation for delay, leading to the refusal of continuation of registration. The AAC considered the submissions and directed the ITO to allow continuation of registration, citing reasonable cause for the delay based on the affidavit filed by the Counsel for the assessee.

2. The Revenue contended that the appeal should not have been entertained as there is no provision for appeal against an order under s. 184(7) by the ITO. Additionally, the Revenue argued that the explanation provided by the assessee was insufficient to justify the delay, emphasizing the negligence of the counsel in not filing the declaration on time. The Revenue claimed that there was no reasonable cause for condoning the delay, and the AAC erred in providing relief to the assessee.

3. The Counsel for the assessee defended the AAC's decision, stating that the delay was due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel, who believed the declaration had been filed on time. The Counsel argued that the mistake was unintentional and justified the delay. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal held that an appeal lies against an order under s. 184(7) by the ITO and upheld the AAC's decision. The Tribunal found the delay to be a simple case of inadvertence by the counsel, with no fraudulent intent, justifying the condonation of delay and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

---