9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm was filed on June 5, 1964. By an order dated March 15, 1965, the Income-tax Officer rejected this application as time-barred as no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application had been offered. The assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was incompetent. This was on the basis that, though the order of the Income-tax Officer was purported to have been passed under section 185, it was really an order under the proviso to section 184(4). The Tribunal also agreed with this view and rejected the appeal. In this reference, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the application for registration c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no concern with the merits of the application for registration. If the application was not in time and the delay in filing the same has not been executed by the Income-tax Officer, there is no application in the eye of law to be dealt with under section 185. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the heading given to the order of the Income-tax Officer as one made under section 185 of the Income-tax Act and sought to argue that it was only an order under section 185 and not one made under section 184(4). Once we find that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to make such an order only under section 184(4) and not under section 185, mere quoting of a wrong provision of law will not either invalidate the order or make it one passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld cover all cases of defects, including the one of delay in filing the application. We are unable to agree with this contention. The defects contemplated under sub-clauses (2) and (3) of section 185 relate to formal defects when the application is filed in time and do not relate to the application being out of time. That is specifically covered under the provision of section 184(4). We may also state that, even if this rejection in this particular case is to be treated as one under section 185(2) at the relevant time, even an order under section 185(2) was not an appealable order and, therefore, it is of no assistance to the assessee. For the foregoing reasons we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee with costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
