Commissioner of Income Tax vs Prakash and Company

u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal has stated the following question :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the order of the Income Tax Officer was one u/s 185(1)(b) and not u/s 184(4) of the Income Tax Act."

This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a decision of this court in Income Tax Officer Vs. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash, . 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 u/s 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 u/s 246. Since such an order in fact amounts to an order rejecting registration, courts have treated such an order as one u/s 185(1)(b) which is expressly made appealable u/s 246,

Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, relies upon a decision of the Orissa High Court: in New Orissa Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , 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,

For the above reasons, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.