9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as barred by time. 2. Rejection of applications by the Tribunal. 3. Interpretation of the proviso to section 256(1) regarding the time limit for filing applications. 4. Failure of the Tribunal to consider the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the court order. 5. Failure of the Tribunal to focus on the provisions of the proviso to section 256(1). 6. Lack of submissions on the merits of the case before the Tribunal. Analysis: The High Court judgment concerns a petition by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the dismissal of its application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Corporation had claimed exemptions under sections 10(20) and 11 of the Act, which were disallowed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal later rejected the exemptions claimed by the Corporation under section 10(20). The Corporation then sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, leading to a series of applications and appeals. The Tribunal rejected the Corporation's applications, prompting the Corporation to file a Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order. The Writ Petition was dismissed with the court advising the Corporation to file an application for reference. Subsequently, the Corporation filed Income-tax Reference Applications, which were rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Corporation's applications were time-barred as they were not filed within the prescribed 60-day period from the date of service of the order. The High Court noted that the Corporation had obtained a certified copy of the court order, resulting in a delay of only six days in filing the applications. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Court emphasized that the Corporation was entitled to the time spent in obtaining the certified copy. The Court highlighted the proviso to section 256(1), which allows for an extension of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's stance on procedural rules, the High Court criticized the Tribunal for not considering the Corporation's circumstances and failing to apply the proviso to section 256(1). The Court also noted that no submissions were made on the merits of the case before the Tribunal, and the Corporation's counsel confirmed that no arguments were presented. Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal's decision flawed and directed the Tribunal to treat the Corporation's applications as having been filed within time, instructing a fresh consideration of the applications on their merits. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the Corporation's Income-tax Reference Applications in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors and procedural provisions in such matters.
|
