Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) THE assessee is a firm. It carries on the business of brick-klin. For the assessment year 1970-71, it was granted registration under the I.T. Act. For the next year, namely, 1971-72, it filed the declaration in Form No. 12, for renewal of registration on 7th August, 1971. THE previous year ended on 10th June, 1961. THE assessee filed an application for condonation of the delay of one month and six days on the ground that it was under the bona fide impression that the declaration could be filed along with the return. THE ITO held that ignorance of law was no excuse. He refused to condone the delay. He treated the assessee as an unregistered firm and assessed it in that status.
(2.) ON appeal, it was held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay. It should have been condoned. The status of the firm was taken as that of a registered firm. The ITO went up to the Tribunal on the question of status of the assessee. On behalf of the revenue, it was submitted that no appeal lay against the ITO's order refusing to condone the delay in filing the declaration. Such an order is passed under Section 184(7) of the Act against which no appeal has been provided under Section 246 of the Act. Reliance was placed upon Chandrasekaran v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 711 a decision of the Madras High Court, in which it was held that such an appeal was not competent.
(3.) THE Tribunal preferred to base its decision on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Dinesh Chandra Industries [1975] 100 ITR 660 and held that an appeal lay under Section 246(j) of the Act. THE Tribunal drew support from the Supreme Court decisions in Mela Ram and Sons v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 607 and Sir Hukumchand and Mannalal Co. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 99. THEse Supreme Court decisions were rendered under the Act of 1922. THE Tribunal held that they were helpful in construing the provisions of the Act of 1961. THE appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that an appeal against the refusal of the Income-tax Officer to condone the delay in filing the application for registration lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 246(j) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" ;