9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Computation of time limit for filing a revision petition under Section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Interpretation of the rule regarding the date from which the one-year period for filing a revision petition is calculated. 3. Applicability of the rule laid down in previous judgments to the provisions of Section 33A(2). 4. Maintainability of a writ of mandamus in relation to proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act. 5. Consideration of long delay in making the application for a writ of certiorari. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with the issue of the computation of the time limit for filing a revision petition under Section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act. The applicant sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to entertain his application for revision, which was rejected as time-barred. The key question was whether the one-year period should be calculated from the date of the order, its communication to the petitioner, or the date when the petitioner had the opportunity to know of the order. The court considered previous decisions of the Madras High Court, including Secretary of State for India in Council v. Gopi Setty Narayanaswami Nayudu Garu and Swaminatha v. Latchumanan, which emphasized that the date from which the period is calculated is when the order is communicated or pronounced, not when it is passed. The court upheld this principle, stating that limitation should start from when the aggrieved party knew of the order or had the opportunity to know of it, ensuring fairness in seeking remedies against adverse orders. The judgment also addressed the argument that the rule regarding the computation of time limits should vary based on specific enactments. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing the consistent application of the principle across statutes. It clarified that the provision in Section 33A(2) imposes a time limit for filing a revision petition by the aggrieved party, distinct from the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 33A(1). Regarding the maintainability of a writ of mandamus in income tax proceedings, the court held that while the Income-tax Act provides remedies for aggrieved parties, the writ sought in this case was to enforce the right to file a revision application, not covered by the Act's provisions. The court found no substance in the objection based on the Act being a complete code, as the relief sought was specific to the Commissioner's refusal to entertain the application. Lastly, the court considered the delay in filing the application for a writ of certiorari, noting that long delays could be grounds for refusal but decided to take a lenient view due to the applicant's attempt to seek remedy from the Central Board of Revenue. The court granted the writ of mandamus to the Commissioner to entertain the application for revision and dispose of it in accordance with the law, with no costs awarded.
|
