Case: Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh

the application is in order and that there is or was a firm in existence constituted as shown in the Instrument of Partnership, grant to the assessee a certificate signed and dated by him in the following form:xx xx xx xx xx Rule 6-B. In the event of the Income-tax Officer being satisfied that the certificate granted under R. 4, or under R. 6-A, has been obtained without there being a genuine firm in existence, he may cancel the certificate so granted. Section 30 (1). Any assessee ............ objecting to the cancellation by an Income-tax Officer of the registration of a firm under sub-section (4) of S. 23 or to a refusal to register a firm under sub-section (4) of S. 23 or S. 26-A ....... may appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment or against such refusal or order." The gist of the said provisions relevant to the present enquiry may be stated thus: Under S. 26-A of the Act an application may be made to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of a firm for registration for the purposes of the Act. Such an application has to be filed and disposed of in the manner prescribed in the Act. Under the Rules, an application for the renewal of registration of a firm which has already been registered in the previous years has to be filed before the Income-tax Officer. That application will be disposed of in the manner prescribed by Rr. 6-A and 6-B. Under those rules, the Income-tax Officer is authorised to make three kinds of orders, viz., (i) he can refuse to renew the registration of the firm; (ii) he can register the firm; and (iii) he can cancel the renewal of registration if he is satisfied that the renewal has been obtained without there being a genuine firm in existence. The crucial point to be noticed is that the said three kinds of orders, having regard to the circumstances of each case, will be made only in the application for renewed registration. The Rules do not provide for independent proceedings for the cancellation of the renewal certificate. In effect, the Income-tax Officer, after setting aside his earlier wrong order made under a misapprehension, refuses renewal of the certificate of registration. If so, it follows that the order cancelling registration is nothing more than refusing to renew the certificate of registration. If that be the construction of an order made cancelling the certificate renewed, such an order directly attracts the appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under S. 30 of the Act. 4. But Mr. Viswanathan Sastry for the Revenue contended that there was internal evidence in S. 30 of the Act itself to show that such a construction was not possible. He further argued that under the Income-tax Law there was no scope for equitable considerations, and under the express provisions of S. 30 no appeal lay against the order of the Income-tax Officer cancelling the certificate of registration. In support of his contention he relied upon that part of S. 30 of the Act which we have extracted earlier and contended that when the Legislature in the context of the orders made under S. 23 (4) spoke separately of the order of registration of a firm and an order refusing to register a firm and in the same Section, in the context of S. 26-A, it mentioned only refusal to register a firm, it clearly expressed its mind that in the former case an appeal would lie against both the orders, whereas in the latter case an appeal would lie only against one of the orders. There is some force in this argument. But a careful reading of the provisions of S. 23 (4) and S. 6-A brings out the difference in the phraseology used in S. 30 in the matter of appeals against orders made under the said two Sections. The relevant parts of S. 23 (4) and S. 26-A (2) may be placed in juxtaposition:Section 23 (4)Section 26-A (2) ... the income-tax Officer... in the case of a firm, may refuse to register it or may cancel its registration if it is already registered The .... application shall be ... dealt with by the Income-tax Officer in such manner as may be prescribed." .............................. A comparative study of the relevant parts of these two provisions at once shows the distinction between the two. Under S. 23 (4) while the Income-tax Officer can make an order refusing to register a firm or may cancel the registration if it is already registered, under S. 26-A(2) he can only make an order in such manner as may be prescribed. The manner prescribed, as we have already indicated earlier, provides for three different kinds of orders to be made in the same application with the result that an order of refusal to renew a certificate and the order cancelling the certificate renewed are given the same effect, namely, refusal of the application to register. That apart, when S. 30 provides for an appeal against the orders under S. 23 (4) and also against orders under S. 26-A, it has incorporated the two forms of orders embodied in S. 23 (4) and used a general word in providing an appeal against an order under S. 26-A, for the nature of order is not described but left to be prescribed under the Rules. 5. If so, it follows that the words "refusal to register a firm" in S. 30 of the Act are wide enough to take in the orders made under Rr. 6-A and 6-B refusing to renew the registration and also cancelling the certificate so renewed. 6. By so holding we are not unaware that enquiry has no place in construing the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Indeed, we have not introduced any equitable consideration in the matter of construction. We have come to the conclusion on a fair reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 7.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]There is some force in this argument. But a careful reading of the provisions of S. 23 (4) and S.A brings out the difference in the phraseology used in S. 30 in the matter of appeals against orders made under the said two Sections. The relevant parts of S. 23 (4) and S.A (2) may be placed in juxtaposition:Section 23 (4)Section... thex Officer... in the case of a firm, may refuse to register it or may cancel its registration if it is already registered The .... application shall be ... dealt with by theA comparative study of the relevant parts of these two provisions at once shows the distinction between the two. Under S. 23 (4) while thex Officer can make an order refusing to register a firm or may cancel the registration if it is already registered, under S.) he can only make an order in such manner as may be prescribed. The manner prescribed, as we have already indicated earlier, provides for three different kinds of orders to be made in the same application with the result that an order of refusal to renew a certificate and the order cancelling the certificate renewed are given the same effect, namely, refusal of the application to register. That apart, when S. 30 provides for an appeal against the orders under S. 23 (4) and also against orders under S., it has incorporated the two forms of orders embodied in S. 23 (4) and used a general word in providing an appeal against an order under S., for the nature of order is not described but left to be prescribed under the Rules5. If so, it follows that the words "refusal to register a firm" in S. 30 of the Act are wide enough to take in the orders made under Rr.A andB refusing to renew the registration and also cancelling the certificate so renewed6. By so holding we are not unaware that enquiry has no place in construing the provisions of thex Act. Indeed, we have not introduced any equitable consideration in the matter of construction. We have come to the conclusion on a fair reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.