9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Exercise of discretion by the Appellate Tribunal in refusing to excuse the delay in presenting the appeals under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Madras, delivered by Rajagopalan, J., addressed the issue of whether the Appellate Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in refusing to excuse the delay in presenting the appeals. The Court criticized the Tribunal for including unnecessary discussion in the statement of the case, emphasizing that the Tribunal's duty was to comply with the court's direction and refer the question as directed. The Court clarified that an order refusing to condone the delay effectively terminates the appeal, as established in previous cases like Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shahzadi Begum and Mela Ram and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court highlighted that the statutory provision for excusing or refusing to excuse the delay was not crucial in determining the nature of the order, which was considered an order passed in appeal by the Tribunal. Moving on to the specific facts of the case, the Court noted that the appellant had claimed to have been given incorrect advice by a clerk regarding the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The appellant argued that the limitation period was two months of 31 days each, leading to a delay of one day beyond the 60-day statutory period. The Court pointed out that there was no material for the Tribunal to doubt this claim, unless they assumed all statements made by appellants were unreliable. Despite the Court's earlier direction that only the one-day delay needed explanation, the Tribunal failed to address this crucial point in the statement of the case, indicating a lack of consideration for the actual issue at hand. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in rejecting the application to excuse the delay was not based on relevant considerations and did not constitute a judicial exercise of discretion. Therefore, the Court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, who was awarded the costs of the reference along with counsel's fee. The judgment highlighted the importance of properly exercising discretion and considering all relevant factors in such matters.
|
