Substantive effect controls appealability where a tax order effectively refuses loss determination and carry-forward rights.

The appealability of an income-tax order depends on its substantive effect on the assessee's rights, not its form. A return of loss filed after the prescribed time but before assessment cannot be ignored where the order in substance denies determination of the loss and the resulting carry-forward benefit. Such an order is treated as determining the loss at nil for appeal purposes and therefore falls within the appeal provision. The key principle is that the real legal consequence of the order, rather than the wording used by the tax authority, controls whether an appeal lies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order treating the return showing loss as filed out of time was an appealable order.

Analysis: A return of loss filed beyond the time prescribed could not be ignored if it was filed before the assessment was made. The effect of the Income-tax Officer's order was to deny the assessee the benefit of having the loss determined and carried forward. The right of appeal depended on the real effect of the order on the assessee's rights and not merely on the form of the language used. An order which in substance refused to determine the loss had to be treated as an order determining the loss at nil and therefore fell within the appeal provision.

Conclusion: The order was appealable.

Ratio Decidendi: The appealability of an income-tax order is determined by its substantive legal effect on the assessee's rights, and an order effectively denying determination of loss or carry-forward benefits is appealable even if framed as a mere filing out of time.

---