GRAFIK INDIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal has referred to us the following question for the asst. year 1971 -72 :

(2.) THE assessee appealed to the AAC, who dismissed the appeal as not being maintainable on the ground that no appeal lay against an order under S. 184(7). The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal vs. Addl. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 854 (All) : TC6R.566, was referred to. On merits also, the AAC held that there was no sufficient cause for furnishing the declaration beyond time. But, the dates, etc., are not stated in any detail by the AAC.

(3.) IN support of the reference, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that there was a statutory amendment in S. 246(j) which became effective from 1st April, 1971, and there was also a similar amendment in proviso (ii) to S. 184(7). At the same time, there was an amendment to sub -ss. (2) and (3) of S. 185. He has urged that since then most of the High Courts have held that an order rejecting a declaration filed in Form No. 12 for extending the registration on the ground that it is belated is appealable to the AAC under S. 246(1). He has pointed out that in some cases, it has been held to be appealable under S. 246(1)(c) and in some cases under S. 246(1)(j). The only exception is in the case of the Orissa High Court, which held that the appeal does not lie even after the amendment in 1971 under S. 246(j). The judgment of the Orissa High Court is CIT vs. Pohop Singh Rice Mill (1981) 132 ITR 390 (Ori) : TC6R.570.