| Case ID |
28040206-297a-4b18-b5f7-7b2db03a8937 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1972 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1986 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 18, 1975 |
| Decision |
The Rajasthan High Court held that an appeal does lie under section 246(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) regarding the refusal to condone the delay in filing a declaration for the continuation of registration of a firm. The court emphasized that the case involved a composite order that included both the assessment of income and the status of the firm, which necessitated an appeal. The decision reinforced the principle that procedural rules should be interpreted in a manner that ensures justice, allowing for the possibility of an appeal where a composite order affects the status of the assessee. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically sections dealing with the registration and assessment of firms. The Rajasthan High Court examined the provisions under section 246(c) and section 184(7) regarding the appealability of composite orders made by the Income-tax Officer. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, establishing that the refusal to condone a delay in filing for registration could be challenged in an appeal. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in tax assessments and the right of firms to contest their status as registered or unregistered. The decision also cites several precedents to support the argument that the status of a firm significantly affects its tax liabilities, warranting an opportunity for appeal when such status is disputed. The ruling is significant for tax practitioners and firms navigating the complexities of tax law and registration procedures. |
| Court |
Rajasthan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Income-tax Officer,
Tribunal,
assessee-firm,
Appellate Assistant Commissioner
|
| Judges |
D.L. Mehta,
P.C. Jain
|
| Lawyers |
N.M. Ranka,
J.K. Ranka,
R.N. Surolia
|
| Petitioners |
Bishambar Dayal Sriniwas
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1986 SLD 2577,
(1986) 162 ITR 5
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Pushpaka Travels [1985] 152 ITR 717 (Ker.),
Addl. CIT v. Chekka Ayyanna [1977] 106 ITR 313 (AP),
ITO v. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash [1979] 117 ITR 594 (All.),
National Tractor Co. v. ITO [1983] 143 ITR 95 (Punj. & Har.),
Madhur Jalpan v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 351 (Pat.),
CIT v. Jabalpur Transport Development Co. [1983] 143 ITR 964 (MP),
CIT v. Hansa Agencies [1980] 121 ITR 147 (Bom.),
CIT v. Pohop Singh Rice Mill [1981] 132 ITR 390 (Ori.),
New Orissa Traders v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 553 (Ori.),
A.S.S.S.S. Chandrasekaran v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 711 (Mad.),
Indo Traders v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 355 (Cal.),
Nilamani Ghosh & Partners v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 281 (Ori.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
246(c),
184(7),
246(j)
|