High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Prakash & Company
Sections 184(4), 185(1), 246
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and R.A. Sharma, J.
IT Ref. No. 112 of 1979
30th January, 1991
BY THE COURT :
Under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, the Tribunal has stated the following question :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the order of the ITO was one under s. 185(1)(b) and not under s. 184(4) of the IT Act.”
This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a decision of this Court in ITO vs. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash (1979) 117 ITR 594 (All). Agreeing with the decisions of the Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, this Court held that an order passed by the ITO refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for renewal of registration of a firm is appealable under s. 246 (1) (j), since it amounts to refusal to grant registration.
It may be noticed that the proviso to sub-s. (4) of s. 184 confers upon an ITO the power to condone the delay in filing the application for registration, if he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the prescribed date. An order passed under this proviso is, however, not made appealable under s. 246. Since such an order in fact amounts to an order rejecting registration, Courts have treated such an order as one under s. 185(1)(b) which is expressly made appealable under s. 246.
Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, relies upon a decision of the Orissa High Court in New Orissa Traders vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 553 (Ori), wherein a contrary view is taken. It is held by the Orissa High Court that an order made under the proviso to s. 184(4) is not appealable. But, in the light of the decision of this Court, we cannot agree with the Orissa view.
For the above reasons, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
[Citation:192 ITR 132]
