1962 (6) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant was the assessee and entitled to prefer appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1954-55.
2. Whether the assessments were made under section 40(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
3. Whether the applicant is barred from preferring the appeals if the assessments were made on the court of wards.
4. Whether the appeals were filed in time.
5. Whether there was any material for the Tribunal to reject the applicant's statement in the affidavit that he came to know about the assessments on April 4, 1957.
6. Whether the Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in not condoning the delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the applicant was the assessee and entitled to prefer appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1954-55:
The court examined the assessment orders and found that the applicant was indeed listed as the assessee. The orders stated, "The assessee is the present jagirdar of Ichalkaranji," and the name of the assessee was given as "Shri Govindrao alias Abasaheb Ghorpade minor jagirdar of Ichalkaranji, Guardian Court of Wards, Kolhapur." This indicated that the applicant was the person against whom the assessment orders were made, making him the assessee with the right to file appeals under section 30 of the Act.

2. Whether the assessments were made under section 40(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act:
The court noted that the Tribunal's assumption that the assessments were made under section 40(1) was incorrect. The assessments were actually made under section 41, which allows for the direct assessment of the ward, thus confirming that the assessments were not made under section 40(1).

3. Whether the applicant is barred from preferring the appeals if the assessments were made on the court of wards:
Even assuming the assessments were made on the court of wards, the court held that the applicant would still have the right to file appeals. Section 30 of the Act confers the right to appeal on any "assessee," defined broadly to include any person in respect of whom any proceeding under the Act has been taken. Since the income assessed was the applicant's, he was considered an assessee entitled to file appeals.

4. Whether the appeals were filed in time:
The court acknowledged that the appeals were filed nearly two years late, clearly beyond the 30-day limitation period. The applicant's contention that section 6 of the Limitation Act applied was dismissed, as it pertains to suits and applications for execution, not appeals. Thus, the appeals were not filed in time.

5. Whether there was any material for the Tribunal to reject the applicant's statement in the affidavit that he came to know about the assessments on April 4, 1957:
The court found that the Tribunal's rejection of the applicant's statement was based on mere surmises. The applicant's affidavit, stating he first learned of the assessments on April 4, 1957, was unchallenged by any counter-affidavit from the department. Therefore, there was no material to reject the applicant's statement.

6. Whether the Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in not condoning the delay:
The court reframed the sixth question to focus on whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in refusing to condone the delay. It found that neither the Appellate Assistant Commissioner nor the Tribunal properly considered whether sufficient cause for condonation was shown. The court did not express a view on the department's contention that the knowledge of the court of wards should be imputed to the applicant, as this was not raised earlier. The matter was left open for consideration by the Tribunal or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upon remand.

Conclusion:
The court answered the questions as follows:
1. The applicant was the assessee and entitled to prefer appeals.
2. The assessments were not made under section 40(1).
3. The applicant was competent to prefer appeals even if the assessments were made on the court of wards.
4. The appeals were not filed in time.
5. There was no material to reject the applicant's statement about when he learned of the assessments.
6. The Tribunal did not properly consider whether sufficient cause for condonation of delay was shown, and the matter was left open for further consideration.