https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8434 The High Court held that an appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the Income-tax Officer's order dated July 19, 1963. The Court found that the ITO's order should have been treated as one under section 185(1)(b) for refusal to register the firms, not under section 186(1) for cancellation of registration. The ITO failed to follow the procedure outlined in section 185(2) by not allowing the firms to rectify the defect in their application. Therefore, the appeal to the AAC was deemed valid under section 246(j). en-us Wed, 15 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8434 The High Court held that an appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the Income-tax Officer's order dated July 19, 1963. The Court found that the ITO's order should have been treated as one under section 185(1)(b) for refusal to register the firms, not under section 186(1) for cancellation of registration. The ITO failed to follow the procedure outlined in section 185(2) by not allowing the firms to rectify the defect in their application. Therefore, the appeal to the AAC was deemed valid under section 246(j). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8434