9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of its incompetence, is appealable under Section 33(1) of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether such an order passed before the expiry of the time fixed for payment of tax is legally valid? Analysis: The High Court was asked to state a case under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act. Two questions were referred to the Court. The first question was whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, dismissing the appeal on the ground of incompetence, is appealable under Section 33(1). The Court answered this question in the affirmative, stating that the order falls within the scope of Section 31 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the admission of an appeal is not provided for under Section 31, and once an appeal is presented, it must be decided under Section 31 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Mysore Iron & Steel Works). The Court highlighted that the order disposing of the appeal is final, regardless of the grounds on which it proceeds. Regarding the second question, the Court did not provide a definitive answer due to insufficient facts. It was mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal should consider the validity of any extension granted by the tax authorities concerning the payment of tax. The Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court supporting a similar interpretation to the one provided by the Orissa High Court. The Court distinguished a Bombay High Court decision, stating that it does not apply to the facts of the case before them. Ultimately, the Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the appeal on its merits. In conclusion, the High Court held that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was appealable under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act. The Court did not provide a definitive answer to the validity of the order passed before the expiry of the tax payment deadline, leaving it to the Appellate Tribunal to consider. Both judges, Ray, CJ, and Panigrahi, J, were in agreement with the judgment.
|
