COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PARIS DRY CLEANERS SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ("Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar ("Tribunal") has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of revenue :

(2.) This reference pertains to the assessment year 1974-75. The controversy is about the maintainability of appeal under clause (j) of section 246 of the Income-tax Act,1961("Act" ) against an order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to condone delay in filing an application for registration of the firm under section 184(4) of the Act.

(3.) At one point of time ,there was a divergence of opinion on this point. That controversy, however, has now been set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645. In that case , the Supreme Court, on consideration of the provisions of section 185 of the Act, held that cases where registration is refused for the reasons set out in section 184(4) or (7) are really cases where there is an order refusing registration to the firm by rejecting its application within the meaning or section 185(2) or (3). This decision was followed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Satyanarayan Saw Mills (1996) 8 SCC 4. In that 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. The question arose whether the said appeal was maintainable. The Tribunal held that it was maintainable which opinion was affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court . Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court , following its earlier decision in CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. ( Supra) , dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was maintainable.