TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration as provided under section 184(7) of the Act. In respect of the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee was required to file the declaration before July 31, 1978, the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act for furnishing the return of income for the subsequent assessment year. Within that period the assessee did not file the declaration and, after expiry of the time, a declaration was filed under section 184(7) of the Act on August 28, 1978. Along with such declaration, no explanation for the delay was furnished. Later on, however, an application was filed explaining that the partners of the firm were engaged in arbitration cases and in obtaining loans for the purpose of continuing the business. The Assessing Officer was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appellate order was reversed and the order of the Income-tax Officer was restored. The assessee filed an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. On that basis, a statement of case has been made to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for decision in accordance with our opinion on the following questions of law : "(i) Whether the order of the Income-tax Officer, though labelled as an order under section 185(3), was in fact an order under section 184(4) ? (ii) Whether the aforesaid order was an appealable one ?" Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was one under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other courts in support of his contention that an appeal lies against the order. They are : ITO v. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash [1979] 117 ITR 594 (All); Addl. CIT v. Murlidhar Mathura Prasad [1979] 118 ITR 392 (All) ; Addl. CIT v. Chekka Ayyanna [1977] 106 ITR 313 (AP) ; CIT v. Dineshchandra Industries [1975] 100 ITR 660 (Guj) ; Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 601 (MP) CIT v. Jabalpur Transport Development Co. [1983] 143 ITR 964 (MP) CIT v. Sitaram Bhagwandas [1976] 102 ITR 560 (Patna) ; CIT v. Beri Chemical Industries [1980] 121 ITR 87 (P & H) ; National Tractor Co. v. ITO [1983] 143 ITR 95 (P & H). In the decision reported in CIT v. Pohop Singh Rice Mill [1981] 132 ITR 390 (Orissa), this court considered Addl. CIT v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earlier decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mtt. AT. S. AT. .Arunachalam Chettiar [1953] 23 ITR 180 was distinguished. In this decision the maintainability of a reference application from an order in miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal was the question. It was held that the order having been made in exercise of its supposed inherent power and not in an appeal under section 33(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, there could be no reference under section 66(1) or (2) of the Act. When an appeal was not admitted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against an order of assessment on the grounds of the same having been filed beyond the time prescribed, a second appeal was filed which was dismissed as not maintainable and a ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unexplained delay since no appeal lies against such non-acceptance under section 246(1)(j) of the Act. An order passed to that effect is not an order under section 185(3) of the Act even though the same is described by the Income-tax Officer to be such an order. In Board of Revenue v. Raj Brothers Agencies, AIR 1973 SC 2307, it was held (p. 2308) : "It has accepted that interpretation to be correct ever since 1963. Under these circumstances it is not proper for this court to upset that decision at this late stage and disturb a settled position in law . . ." Applying the aforesaid principle, when interpretation has been made as early as in New Orissa Traders v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 553 (Orissa), which has been affirmed in a direct de....