9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application under section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation.
The judgment involves the dismissal of an application under section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal on the basis of being barred by limitation. The applicant, a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bins, had filed an appeal regarding the assessment for the year 1949-50, which was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the applicant filed an application under section 66(1) of the Act to refer certain questions of law to the Court. The Tribunal dismissed the application as being time-barred, citing that it had no power to condone the delay regardless of the case's merits. The crux of the issue revolved around the timeline within which the applicant should have made the application under section 66(1) of the Act. Section 66(1) mandates that the assessee should file the application within sixty days of being served with a notice of an order under section 33(4). The Tribunal contended that the application was beyond the stipulated time limit and could not be condoned. However, the applicant argued that they were not served with the order in accordance with the prescribed rules, as no notice or copy of the order was sent to them by the Tribunal. The Court analyzed the provisions of section 33(4) of the Act, which require the Tribunal to communicate its orders to the assessee and the Commissioner. Rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, further emphasized the necessity of communicating the order to the concerned parties. The applicant provided evidence that the order was not properly communicated to them, as it was sent to an incorrect address and received by a person not authorized to receive it. The Court held that the order was not communicated to the applicant in compliance with the law, and thus, the application could not be deemed time-barred. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the applicant, stating that the application was not barred by limitation. It directed the Tribunal to treat the application as made within time and proceed with the disposal of the case according to the law. The judgment concluded by allowing the application with costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal matters.
|
