Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1866 1991 SLD 1866 (1991) 190 ITR 256
Patna High Court

G.G. SOHANI, C.J. G.C. BHARUKA., J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

B.L. Agarwalla

Law:

Section:

Section 246, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner (Appeals) - Appealable orders - Assessment year 1972-73 - Whether an appeal lies against order of the ITO refusing continuation of registration under section 184(7) before AAC/Commissioner (Appeals) and so second appeal against order of A AC in that regard before Tribunal is obviously competent - Held, yes Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Firm - Registration - Continuation of - Assessment year 1972-73 - Assessee-firm discovered at time, of assessment that its return was not accompanied by declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of registration and filed a fresh declaration, requesting ITO for condonation of delay - ITO rejected assessee's prayer and denied continuation of registration to assessee- Tribunal found it was case of bona fide mistake and held that assessee was entitled to continuation of registration - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee was entitled to continuation of registration for relevant assessment year - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-firm discovered at the time of assessment that its return was not accompanied by a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of registration and filed a fresh declaration, requesting the ITO for condonation of delay in filing the same. The ITO refused to accept the fresh declaration, holding that the assessee had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay in filing the said declaration and, thus, denied continuation of registration to the assessee-firm. On appeal, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO. On second appeal, the Tribunal, considering the preliminary objection raised by the department that against an order under section 184(7) no appeal lay J»fore the AAC and, as such, the appeal before the Tribunal was also incompetent, held that under the circumstances, the appeal preferred by the assessee before the AAC as also before the Tribunal was maintainable. It further held that it was a case of bona fide mistake by the assessee which could be deemed to be sufficient cause. It, accordingly, held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing…
🔒
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