Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Bidi Leaves Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 176 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1985]154ITR182(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act - Sections 143, 143(3), 184(7) and 185
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentM.P. Bidi Leaves Co.
Appellant AdvocateB.K. Rawat, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV.S. Dabir, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - the commissioner proceeded to decide the assessee's appeal and rejected the application for adjournment by saying that there was no good and sufficient reason for adjournment......the assessee filed merely an application for adjournment. the commissioner proceeded to decide the assessee's appeal and rejected the application for adjournment by saying that there was no good and sufficient reason for adjournment. on the question of benefits of registration, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) also held against the assessee. against the order of the commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal by its order dated june 7, 1980, remanded the matter to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the assessee. aggrieved by this order, the revenue approached the tribunal for making a reference and at the instance of the revenue, the present reference has been made to answer the.....
Judgment:

Oza, C.J.

1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for answering the questions :

'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the question of status afresh when the assessee did not file a separate appeal against the refusal of the registration to the firm ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding two issues, namely, the question of status and disallowances of expenses in one appeal filed by the assessee ?'

2. The facts stated by the Tribunal are that the assessee-firm earns its income from sale of tendu leaves. According to the ITO, the firm did not file a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of the benefits of registration for the assessment year in question. When called upon to explain why declaration was not furnished, the assessee filed a duplicate Form No. 12 duly signed by all the partners along with their application dated March 1, 1977. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that in view of the circumstances stated, there was sufficient cause for not furnishing the declaration within time. The ITO did not accept the explanation furnished by the assessee and refused to condone the delay and treated the firm as unregistered. He declined to grant the benefits of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act. This finding in the assessment was made by him under Section 143(3) for the assessment year under consideration. On appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner noted that a notice of hearing was given to the assessee and it was duly received by it, but in response, the assessee filed merely an application for adjournment. The Commissioner proceeded to decide the assessee's appeal and rejected the application for adjournment by saying that there was no good and sufficient reason for adjournment. On the question of benefits of registration, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also held against the assessee. Against the order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated June 7, 1980, remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue approached the Tribunal for making a reference and at the instance of the Revenue, the present reference has been made to answer the questions stated above.

3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the Tribunalin its order observed that as only one appeal was filed and that was under Sections 185 and 143 and, therefore, there is no appeal filed by the assessee against the refusal to give the advantage of registration and in view of this finding of the Tribunal, the matter could not be sent back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for rehearing. Learned counsel for the Revenue for his contention relied on para. 3 of the order of the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the parties frankly conceded that if the direction of the Tribunal remanding the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is maintained, question No. (ii) is unnecessary as it is redundant. They also frankly conceded that question No. (i) in fact is made up of two parts : (a) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the question of status afresh, and (b) when the assessee did not file a separate 'appeal against the refusal of the registration of the firm.

5. So far as the first part of question No. (i), i.e., part (a) is concerned, it was not seriously, debated that the Tribunal in law was not justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the question of status afresh as it appears that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the application of the assessee for adjournment whereas the learned Tribunal felt that there were sufficient reasons and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have adjourned the appeal and given an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In this view of the matter, so far as the first part of the question, i.e. part (a) is concerned, it is plain that the Tribunal was justified in sending the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

6. As regards the other part of question No. (i) i.e., part (b), the counsel for the assessee contended that as this part of the question has not been decided by the Tribunal, it could not be said that this part arises out of the order of the Tribunal, whereas learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal in its order observed that there was no appeal against the order refusing the benefit of registration as there was only one appeal which was designed as an appeal under Sections 143 and 185, whereas the counsel for the assessee contended that these observations are nothing but merely reproduction of what was observed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and as the Tribunal chose to remand the matter, it did not decide it on merits and, therefore, it could not be said that this part of the question arises out of the order of the Tribunal.

7. It is plain that the second part of the first question, i.e., part (b) does not arise out of the order and, therefore, it is not necessary for this court to answer that question. So far as the first part of the question, i.e., part (a), is concerned, it is answered in the affirmative that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the question of status afresh. The rest of this question does not arise from the order and, therefore, is not necessary to be answered. The question No. (ii) admittedly is redundant in view of our answer to the first question.

8. The reference is answered accordingly. 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 //