https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69503 The Tribunal found that the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) refusal to renew the firm's registration fell under section 185(3) and was appealable under section 246(j), overturning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. Additionally, the Tribunal held that an order under section 143(1) by the ITO, deviating from summary assessment and prejudicing the assessee, is appealable under section 246(c), contrary to the AAC's ruling. The ITO's failure to follow the correct procedure under section 185(3) rendered the refusal to renew registration illegal. The Tribunal set aside the ITO and AAC's orders, directing a fresh consideration with proper opportunity for the assessee. en-us Thu, 05 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:26:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69503 The Tribunal found that the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) refusal to renew the firm's registration fell under section 185(3) and was appealable under section 246(j), overturning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. Additionally, the Tribunal held that an order under section 143(1) by the ITO, deviating from summary assessment and prejudicing the assessee, is appealable under section 246(c), contrary to the AAC's ruling. The ITO's failure to follow the correct procedure under section 185(3) rendered the refusal to renew registration illegal. The Tribunal set aside the ITO and AAC's orders, directing a fresh consideration with proper opportunity for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69503