Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 1193 1983 SLD 1193 (1983) 143 ITR 976
Madhya Pradesh High Court
SEPTEMBER 27, 1982 MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 189 OF 1979.
G.L. OZA AND B.C. VERMA, JJ.
B.L. Nema for the Applicant. B.K. Rawat for the
Respondent.

Mahakoshal Ceramics

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

section 251(1)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961-appellate assistant commissioner-powers of-against ito's order refusing continuation of registration, assessee-firm filed revision petition to commissioner who rejected it-assessee took no further steps to get ito's order quashed-subsequently, on appeal against assessee's assessment, aac directed ito to pass fresh order stating reasons for adopting assessee's status as unregistered firm-whether in view of the fact that the question of registration having become final following rejection of revision petition, aac had no power to reopen that question in an appeal against assessment-held, on facts, yes Facts The ITO completed the assessee-firm's assessment in the status of unregistered firm, refusing to condone the delay in filing the declaration under section 184(7) for continuation of registra- tion. On appeal, the AAC remanded the case to the ITO directing him to deal with the question of continuation of registration in the assessment order itself. The ITO, however, dealt with the question of continuation of registration under section 184(7) separately and again refused the assessee's application for continuation of registration. He also passed a separate order of assessment under section 143(3) taking the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm. The appeal against the order under section 184(7) was dismissed by the AAC as not maintainable. Against the AAC's order the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal but withdrew it later and went in revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner also rejected the application and, thus, the question of continuance of registration became final. In the meantime, in the assessee's appeal against the assessment order under section 143(3), the AAC remanded the case to the ITO directing him to pass a fresh order stating the reasons for adopting the status of the assessee as an unregistered firm. On appeal, the Tribunal held that AAC's order was not sustainable since the question of registration and status of firm had already become final with the Commissioner's rejection of the assessee's appeal for revision. On reference: Held It was no doubt true that a delay of a few…
🔒
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