Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 551 1974 SLD 551 (1974) 96 ITR 711
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 157 OF 1968 (REFERENCE No. 56 OF 1968), JUNE 26, 1974
G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
V. Ramachandran for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the
Respondent

A.S.S.S.S. Chandrasekaran & Bros.

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 246 read with sections 184(4) and 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Appealable order - Assessment year 1964-65 - Whether no appeal lies from order of ITO rejecting assessee's application for registration as time barred - Held, yes FACTS The ITO rejected the assessee firm's application for registration as time-barred as no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application had been offered. The assessee filed an appeal to the AAC. The AAC rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was incompetent. This was on the basis that, though the order of the ITO was purported to have been passed under section 185, it was really an order under the proviso to section 184(4). The Tribunal also agreed with this view and rejected the appeal. On instant reference, the assessee contended that the application for registration could be rejected by the ITO only under section 185 and as such the appeal was maintainable. HELD In order to entertain an application for registration, it should have been presented before the end of the previous year for the assessment year in respect of which registration is sought. If there is any delay in filing the application and the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the ITO, he can entertain the application even after the end of the previous year. Only after the application is entertained as being in time and requires to be considered on merits, it can be dealt with under section 185. Section 185 deals with disposal of an application on entertainment of the same on merits while section 184(4) has no concern with the merits of the application for registration. If the application was not in time and the delay in filing the same has not been excused by the ITO, there is no application in eye of law to be dealt with under section 185. Once it was found that the ITO had jurisdiction to make such an order only under section 184(4) and not under section 185, mere quoting of a wrong provision of law would not either invalidate the order or make it one passed under the wrong provision of the Act. It was not disputed that under section 184(4) the ITO could refuse to entertain an application on the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492