Supreme Court of India
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs M/S. Satyanarayana Saw Mills on 18 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996IIIAD(SC)116, AIR1996SC3054, [1996]219ITR358(SC), JT1996(3)SC391, 1996(2)SCALE830, (1996)8SCC4, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 3054, 1996 (8) SCC 4, 1996 AIR SCW 1441, (1996) 3 JT 391 (SC), (1996) 85 TAXMAN 401, (1996) 219 ITR 358, (1996) 131 TAXATION 540, (1996) 133 CURTAXREP 276
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S. Saghir Ahmad
ORDER
S--Order of ITO refusing to condone delay in filing Form No. 12.
Ratio & Held :
The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against Income Tax Officer's order refusing to condone delay in filing Form No. 12 and thereby refusal to continue registration under section 184(7) is maintainable.
Case Law Analysis :
CIT v. Ashoka Engg. Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC) followed.
Application :
Not to current assessment years.
Income Tax Act 1961 s.246 JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of this court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashoka Engineering Company . The question which was referred to the High Court Under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act runs thus:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against refusal to continue registration Under Section 184(7) is maintainable?
2. In this 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 to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The question arose whether the said appeal is maintainable. The Tribunal held that it was maintainable which opinion has been affirmed by the High Court. This Court has held in the aforesaid decision that such an order is appealable.
3. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.