SIR HUKUMCHAND & MANNALAL CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 223/1965Supreme Court[1966] 3 S.C.R. 19304 January 1966Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sir Hukmichand & Mannalal Co., a firm registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, had its registration renewed for the assessment year 1953-54. Subsequently, on March 6, 1959, the Income-tax Officer cancelled this renewed registration under Rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, citing that the firm was not genuine. The appellant appealed this order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal, holding that no appeal lay against such an order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The High Court, on reference, also ruled that an appeal against the cancellation order under Rule 6B was not maintainable under Section 30 of the Act. The matter then came before the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the words 'refusal to register a firm' in Section 30 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are wide enough to include orders made under Rules 6A and 6B that refuse to renew registration or cancel a renewed certificate. The Court reasoned that an application for renewal under Section 26A, when dealt with under Rules 6A and 6B, can result in three types of orders: refusal to renew, registration, or cancellation of renewal. The Court found that cancelling a renewed certificate is essentially setting aside an earlier order and refusing renewal, thus having the same effect as a refusal to renew. Therefore, such an order directly attracts the appellate jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 30. The Court clarified that this interpretation is based on a fair reading of the relevant provisions and does not introduce equitable considerations. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an order cancelling the certificate of renewal of registration of a firm, made by the Income-tax Officer under Rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, is appealable under Section 30(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the words 'refusal to register a firm' in Section 30 are broad enough to encompass orders refusing to renew registration and also orders cancelling a renewed certificate. They contended that such an order directly falls within the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 30. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that there is internal evidence within Section 30 itself that suggests such an interpretation is not possible. They argued that Section 30 distinguishes between orders under Section 23(4) (cancellation of registration and refusal to register) and orders under Section 26A (only mentioning refusal to register), implying that an appeal lies against both orders under Section 23(4) but only against refusal to register under Section 26A. They also argued that under income-tax law, there is no scope for equitable considerations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 26A,Section 30,Section 23(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

B c D E F . • G I ' • H SIR HUKUMCHAND & MANNALAL CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH January 4, 1966 (K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] Income-tax Act ( 11 of 1922), s. 26A and Income-tax Rules, rr. 6A. and 6B---Order of cancellation under r. 6B-If appea/ab/e.

The Income1-tax Officer cancelJ-00 the certificate of renewal of reg;s- tration of the appellant-firm, under r. 6B of the Income-tax Rules, on the ground that the firm was not a genuine on·o.

The Appellate Assistant C'<Jmmissioner, the Tribunal and the High Court o.n reference, held that no appeal lay against 1he order of the Income~tax Officer to the Appellate Aaistant Commissioner under s. 30(1) of 1he Income-rnx Act, 1922. In appeal to this Court, HELD :The words "refusal to register a firm" in s. 30 are wide enough to take in the orders made under rr. 6A and 6B refusing to renew n~4!atration and also cancelling the certificate so renewed, and such an order directly attracts the appellate juri iction conferred on the Appellate A.o.sistant Commissioner under the section. [196 E; 197 F] The fact that s. 30 provides for an appeal separately against the orders unde

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 26A

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 26A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →