1990 (2) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase was framed on 31st March, 1987, under s. 143(3), on a total income of Rs. 39,450. In the said order, another order under s. 184(7) was also passed to the effect that since no declaration in Form No. 12 was filed, as per record in office, the firm was treated as URF. The said order was separately signed by the learned ITO. 3. This finding was contested by the assessee and before the learned AAC. Shri Rajiv Narula, learned advocate, argued that Form No. 12 was duly sent under postal certificate (UPC) on 16th April, 1986, a copy of receipt of UPC envelope in which Form No. 12 was duly sent by the assessee, was also filed. On that basis, it was pleaded that renewal of registration should have been allowed by the learned ITO. The learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ratio in the case of CIT vs. Kalyani Selection Kargallia Colliery (1983) 35 CTR (Pat) 302 : (1984) 146 ITR 577 (Pat), for the proposition that in the present circumstances, Form No. 12 sent by the assessee UPC should be considered as having been received by the Department. He also invited our specific intention to page 579 of the report, wherein observations of Hon'ble Privy Council in the case of Harihar Banerji vs. Ramshashi Roy AIR 1918 PC 102 is reproduced, to stress his argument that if a letter properly directed, containing a notice to quit, was proved to had been put into the post office, it was presumed that the letter reached its destination at the proper time, according to the regular course of business of the post office, and was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pointed out to the effect that the learned ITO should have allowed an opportunity to the assessee for bringing Form No. 12 on record, as existence of genuine firm was not in doubt. The learned counsel also contended that since UPC receipt was in possession of the assessee, so it is clear that the post was sent by the assessee only. 7. Submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties have been heard and record carefully perused. To start with, we will take up the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Revenue that the order passed under s. 184(7) was not appealable. The order was passed by the learned ITO and appeal against that order was filed by the assessee, which was dismissed by the learned AAC. Presumably, there is seen t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 246(1)(j) provides an appeal against an order cancelling the registration of a firm under cl. (b) of s. 185(1), such an order passed on the declaration under s. 184(7) is appealable." The order is also clearly appealable under s. 246(1)(j) in view of the ratio in the case supra, decided by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. Thus, the objection raised by the learned Deptl. Representative was no doubt valid but lacks merit because of our above discussion, based on the above ratios in the above judgments. We dispose of the objection accordingly. 9. Another relevant issue in this case is as to whether it would be proper to assume that Form No. 12 sent by the assessee to the Revenue UPC could be presumed that it had been received by ....