Patna H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order passed under s. 184(7) of the IT Act by the ITO is appealable ?

Counsel Appeared

B.P. Rajgarhia & S.K. Sharan, for the Revenue : None appeared for, the Assessee

BY THE COURT :

This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ” the Act “). The only question referred to us for our opinion is as follows : ” Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order passed under s. 184(7) of the IT Act by the ITO is appealable ? “

The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee is a partnership firm. It applied for continuation of registration in terms of s. 184(7) of the Act. The ITO rejected the application for registration. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the ITO, appealed to the AAC, who

The question referred to us for our opinion is concluded by two decisions of this Court in the cases of CIT vs. Manuram Babulal (1986) 158 ITR 5 (Pat)and CIT vs. Gyanchand Bedi (1987) 163 ITR 693(Pat), in which it was held that any order rejecting the continuation of registration under s. 184 (7) of the Act is appealable. We, therefore, in consonance with the two Division Bench decisions of this Court, referred to above, hold that the, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order passed under s. 184(7) of the Act by the ITO was appealable. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs.

allowed the appeal. The Revenue contested the matte r before the Tribunal but without any

success. Hence this reference to us.

[Citation : 169 ITR 384]