TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laration for continuation of registration of the firm in Form No. 12. The assessee filed a revised return and along with that return, the necessary declaration in Form No. 12 was filed. The Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Churu (hereinafter referred to as " the Income-tax Officer "), did not continue the registration of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 on the ground that the requisite declaration in Form No. 12 was not filed along with the original return. The Income-tax Officer assessed the assessee as an unregistered firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, B-Range, Jaipur, allowed the assessee's claim for continuation of the registration of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer on the view that no appeal lay against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to continue the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1970-71. Thereupon, the assessee moved an application for referring the question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court and the question mentioned abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efusing to continue the registration is in substance an order refusing registration of the firm under section 185(1)(b) of the Act and an appeal lay against the said order under clause (j) of section 246. The further submission of Shri Mehta was that the position has now been put beyond doubt by the amendment introduced in clause (j) of section 246 by the 1970 Act and that in the present case, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was appealable. In this connection, Shri Mehta has urged that although the amendment introduced in clause (j) of section 246 came into force on April 1, 1971, and the present case relates to the assessment year 1970-71, the amended provisions of clause (j) of section 246 are applicable to the appeal filed by the assessee in view of Circular No. 229 dated August 9, 1977, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes whereby it was provided that the amended provisions of clause (j) of section 246 would be applicable to an appeal filed against an order passed after April 1, 1971. Shri Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, has supported the order of the Tribunal and has urged that the case of the assessee is not covered by clause (c) of section 246 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pages 101 and 102): " Under those rules, the Income-tax Officer is authorised to make three kinds of orders, viz., (i) he can refuse to renew the registration of the firm; (ii) he can register the firm; and (iii) he can cancel the renewal of registration if he is satisfied that the renewal has been obtained without there being a genuine firm in existence. The crucial point to be noticed is that the said three kinds of orders, having regard to the circumstances of each case, will be made only in the application for renewal registration. The rules do not provide for independent proceedings for the cancellation of the renewal certificate. In effect, the Income-tax Officer, after setting aside his earlier wrong order made under a misapprehension, refuses renewal of the certificate of registration. If so, it follows that the order cancelling registration is nothing more than refusing to renew the certificate of registration. If that be the construction of an order made cancelling the certificate renewed, such an order directly attracts the appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 30 of the Act." In the said case, it was further observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Andhra Pradesh has held that an order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 184(7) of the Act refusing to allow continuation of registration to a firm is appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 246(j) of the Act, since it amounts to refusal to grant registration. In CIT v. Mothooram Premchand [1980] 121 ITR 59, the High Court of Punjab Haryana has also taken the same view and has held that an appeal was maintainable before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to renew registration to the firm under section 184(7) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal's case [1972] 83 ITR 854 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sandersons Morgan's case [1973] 87 ITR 270, on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal as well as by Shri Arora, have been noticed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chekka Ayyanna's case [1977] 106 ITR 313 and by the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Mothooram Premchand's case [1980] 121 ITR 59 and the said decisions have been dissented from on the ground that the decision of the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
