Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gajrajsingh and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 69 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1984]149ITR339(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 184(7)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentGajrajsingh and Co.
Appellant AdvocateB.K. Rawat, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.C. Bhamore, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the order refusing to allow continuation of registration ?' 2. it appears that the assessee-firm's registration was refiised in the earlier assessment year 1972-73 and in the assessment year in question, i.e., 1973-74, an application in the form for continuance of the registration was submitted late and, therefore, rejected by the ito. the aac also confirmed the findings arrived at by the ito. but the appellate tribunal,on appeal, felt that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the ito and also by the aac and allowed the continuance of registration of the firm. against this judgment, passed by the appellate tribunal, at the instance of the department, the present reference is made. 3. learned counsel for the parties.....
Judgment:

Oza, J.

1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act. The question referred is :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the ITO to allow continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961, when no appeal lies against the order refusing to allow continuation of registration ?'

2. It appears that the assessee-firm's registration was refiised in the earlier assessment year 1972-73 and in the assessment year in question, i.e., 1973-74, an application in the form for continuance of the registration was submitted late and, therefore, rejected by the ITO. The AAC also confirmed the findings arrived at by the ITO. But the Appellate Tribunal,on appeal, felt that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the ITO and also by the AAC and allowed the continuance of registration of the firm. Against this judgment, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Department, the present reference is made.

3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that for the assessment year 1972-73 also, registration of the firm was granted and now, therefore, the only question is about continuance.

4. It is not in dispute that allowing continuance of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is appealable and, therefore, if the appeal is competent, the Appellate Tribunal is competent to consider whether the reasons stated for condonation of delay are good or bad and it appears that the Appellate Tribunal, on merits, came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the ITO and maintained by the AAC. Under these circumstances, the question as to whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified or not, is a question pertaining to the merits of the case and no substantial question of law arises as it is not disputed that the appeal is competent against the order allowing continuance of registration under Section 184(7).

5. Consequently, our answer to the question is in the affirmative that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the ITO to allow continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //