1990 (8) TMI 198 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of limitation period for filing reference applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of compliance with section 254(3) regarding serving a copy of the order to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner.

Issue 1:
The judgment dealt with the calculation of the limitation period for filing reference applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)-II, New Delhi had moved applications under section 256(1) seeking reference of certain questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal's Registry reported delays in the applications, which were contested by both the Commissioner and the assessee-respondent. The main contention was regarding the starting point of the limitation period, whether from the date the order was received by the Chief Commissioner or when it was received by the Commissioner concerned.

Issue 2:
The judgment focused on the interpretation of compliance with section 254(3) concerning serving a copy of the order to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The Tribunal had the option to send the order to either the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The crux of the issue was whether mere delivery of the order to the Chief Commissioner's office constituted compliance with section 254(3) or if the order had to be served on the Commissioner concerned. The Tribunal analyzed past cases such as CIT v. Hindustan Vacuum Glass Ltd. and CIT v. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. to determine the correct interpretation. The judgment emphasized that the delivery to the Chief Commissioner was merely a step towards compliance and that the ultimate recipient should be the concerned Commissioner for the limitation period to commence. The Tribunal held that the applications were within the limitation period as the orders were served on the Commissioner concerned in compliance with the Tribunal's instructions.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the calculation of the limitation period for filing reference applications under section 256(1) and provided a detailed analysis of compliance with section 254(3) regarding serving the order to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the delivery to the Chief Commissioner was not sufficient compliance and that the order had to be served on the Commissioner concerned for the limitation period to commence. The judgment highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements accurately to ensure timely filing of reference applications.