1949 (4) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Application under Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act challenging the rejection of an application for stating a case as time-barred.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around an application under Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act challenging the rejection of an application for stating a case as time-barred by the Appellate Tribunal.

2. The Appellate Tribunal passed an order on appeal under Section 19 of the Excess Profits Tax Act in 1945, covering accounting periods ending in 1939, 1940, and 1941 with similar points at issue.

3. The company received plain copies of the orders in August 1946 and applied for certified copies in September 1946, necessary for making an application under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.

4. The relevant rules in force mandated submitting certified copies of orders, and the company's applications under Section 66(1) were made without receiving the certified copies due to delays in processing.

5. Despite follow-up correspondence and applications for certified copies, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the applications in 1947 as time-barred, citing the delay beyond sixty days from the notice of the order.

6. The Tribunal's rejection was based on the grounds that the Applicant had plain copies of the order and thus Section 67A, allowing time for obtaining a copy, did not apply.

7. The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 67A, which entitles the Applicant to the time required for obtaining a copy, regardless of whether a certified copy was necessary.

8. The Tribunal's decision was deemed incorrect, and it was emphasized that the department cannot benefit from its own delays to deprive the Applicant of the right to appeal under the statute.

9. Notably, a statement of case had already been drawn up for one accounting period, indicating that the applications for the other periods should have been considered timely as well.

10. The Tribunal's skepticism regarding the applications for certified copies, despite the advocate's assertions and correspondence, was criticized, and it was concluded that the applications were not time-barred.

11. The judgment directed that the applications be treated as timely and proceeded with accordingly, with the Assessee awarded costs for the applications.