9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of delay in presenting appeals within the prescribed period under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for the years 1949-50, 1950-51, and 1951-52. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved three references under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, initiated by the assessee petitioner regarding the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51, and 1951-52. The primary questions referred to the High Court were related to the sufficiency of cause for the delay in presenting the appeals within the prescribed period and whether postal delivery delay could be considered as a valid reason for the delay. 2. The delay in presenting the appeals stemmed from the assessee sending the appeals to the Income-tax Tribunal one day after the deadline, leading to the dismissal of the appeals due to being time-barred. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, stating it was a factual finding and not a legal question. The subsequent application under Section 66(2) sought High Court intervention on the matter. 3. The judgment highlighted the point of limitation, emphasizing the discretionary power of the Tribunal to condone delay based on sufficient cause shown in each case. The judgment referred to a Full Bench decision overturning a previous Division Bench ruling, asserting that the issue of delay was a factual matter rather than a legal question. 4. The counsel for the assessee argued for a liberal interpretation of Section 33(2A) of the Act, citing a Supreme Court decision related to the Representation of the People Act. However, the judgment differentiated the statutory liability in tax matters from the discretionary power in election petitions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provisions in tax laws. 5. The judgment addressed the contention that the Tribunal's discretion should be judiciously exercised and could be subject to appellate review if exercised arbitrarily or based on a wrong legal understanding. However, it clarified the limited scope of High Court jurisdiction under Section 66(2) compared to a second appeal. 6. The judgment concluded that the delay in presenting the appeals lacked justification, as the assessee waited 56 days after receiving the order without valid reasons. It dismissed arguments related to errors of fact or law, emphasizing that the delay was not due to any mistake in law. 7. The High Court answered the questions in the affirmative and negative, stating there was insufficient cause for the delay in presenting the appeals and that postal delivery delay could not be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline. Consequently, all three references were rejected with costs imposed. 8. The Chief Justice and the other Judge concurred with the decision, leading to the rejection of the references and the assessment of a consolidated hearing fee.
|
