COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. PRAKASH AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal has stated the following question :

(2.) This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a decision of this court in ITO v. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash [1979] 117 ITR 594. Agreeing with the decisions of the Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, this court held that an order passed by the Income-tax Officer refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for renewal of registration of a firm is appealable under Section 246(1)(j), since it amounts to refusal to grant registration. It may be noticed that the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 184 confers upon an Income-tax Officer the power to condone the delay in filing the application for registration, if he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the prescribed date. An order passed under this proviso is, however, not made appealable under Section 246. Since such an order in fact amounts to an order rejecting registration, courts have treated such an order as one under Section 185(1)(b) which is expressly made appealable under Section 246,

(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, relies upon a decision of the Orissa High Court: in New Orissa Traders v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 553, wherein a contrary view is taken. It is held by the Orissa High Court that an order made under the proviso to Section 184(4) is not appealable. But, in the light of the decision of this court, we cannot agree with the Orissa view,