TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrimati Vidyawati, widow of Shri Gurdial Singh, joined the firm as a partner. On 8th September, 1971, the assessee, i.e., the newly constituted firm, filed an application for registration for the assessment year 1971-72. Under s. 184(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), this application should have been filed before the end of the previous year, i.e., 31st March, 1971. The assessee, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application for registration on the ground that Shri Gurdial Singh was the managing partner of the firm and that, due to his death, the other partners were in a state of confusion and so they could not apply for registration before 31st March, 1971. This plea of the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for registration if he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the end of the previous year. However, in case he refused to condone the delay, the result is that the registration is refused to the assessee-firm and then the order of refusal must be deemed to have been passed under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 184. That being so, the order refusing registration to the assessee-firm in the present case was, in fact, passed under section 185(1)(b) and as such the same was appealable before the AAC." It was further held by the Tribunal that the impugned order passed by the ITO was really an order under s. 185(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held to be an order passed under s. 31 and an appeal lay from that order to the Appellate Tribunal. It was further held that an appeal presented out of time was an appeal and an order dismissing it as time-barred is one passed in appeal. Keeping the said ratio in view in the present case, the order passed by the ITO refusing to entertain the assessee's belated application for registration under the proviso to s. 184(4) tantamounted to an order under s. 18 5(1)(b) and, thus, an appeal was competent against such an order under s. 246(j) of the Act. In the case of CIT v. Dineshchandra Industries [1975] 100 ITR 660 (Guj), the provisions of the earlier Act of 1922 and the provisions of the present Act of 1961 have been considered and it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|