1996 JTR(SC) 609
1996 AIR(SC) 3054 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 1441 ; 1996 133 CTR 276 ; 1996 219 ITR 358 ; 1996 3 JT 391 ; 1996 2 Scale 830 ; 1996 8 SCC 4 ; 1996 85 Taxman 401 ; 1996 KHC 1755 ; 1996 2 Supreme 764
1996(2) SUPREME 764
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh -Appellant
versus
M/s. Satyanarayana Saw Mills -Respondent
Civil Appeal No 640 of 1978
Decided on 18-3-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
Order of Income Tax Officer refusing to continue registration is appealable u/s 184(7) of Income Tax Act
Act
Referred
:INCOME TAX ACT : S.184(7), S.246
INCOME TAX RULES : R.24
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) An order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act is appealable.
Facts of the case:
Form No. 12 for renewal of registration was not filed along with the return but at a later date. The Income Tax Officer refused to condone the delay, and the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held the appeal maintainable, a view affirmed by the High Court. This Court held that such an order is appealable.
Issues:
Whether an appeal filed by an assessee against a refusal to continue registration under Section 184(7) is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is appealable, the appeal is maintainable.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) An order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act is appealable.
Facts of the case:
Form No. 12 for renewal of registration was not filed along with the return but at a later date. The Income Tax Officer refused to condone the delay, and the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held the appeal maintainable, a view affirmed by the High Court. This Court held that such an order is appealable.
Issues:
Whether an appeal filed by an assessee against a refusal to continue registration under Section 184(7) is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is appealable, the appeal is maintainable.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
This appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of this Court s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashoka Engineering Company1,. The question which was referred to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act runs thus :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against refusal to continue registration under Section 184(7) is maintainable ?"
2. In this case, Form No. 12, seeking renewal of registration was not filed along with the return but at a later point of time. The Income Tax Officer refused to condone the delay in filing the said form, against which order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The question arose whether the said appeal is maintainable. The Tribunal held that it was maintainable which opinion has been affirmed by the High Court. This Court has held in the aforesaid decision that such an order is appealable.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. v. M/s. Satyanarayana Saw Mills, 1996(2) Supreme 764
00023