1968 (8) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appeals were rightly dismissed as barred by time.
2. Whether the appeals were filed in the correct form and within the prescribed time limits.
3. Whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals as barred by limitation was justified.
4. Whether the Tribunal followed the correct procedure in handling the appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras addressed the issue of whether the appeals were rightly dismissed as barred by time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made a common order for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, with the last date for filing the appeals being December 14, 1962. Only one appeal was filed on that date, which was initially treated as for 1959-60. The Tribunal requested a separate appeal for 1960-61, which was filed on December 18, 1962, and received on December 21, 1962. Despite some procedural issues with the form of the appeals, they were eventually sent to the Tribunal in the old form on January 7, 1963, and received on January 10, 1963. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation, citing a lack of satisfactory reasons for condoning the delay.

Regarding the form of the appeals, the High Court found that there was no substantial difference between the old and new forms, with the new form requiring more information. The appeal presented in the new form for the first year contained all necessary particulars, and there was no valid reason for its return or for not admitting it on time. For the second appeal, it was noted that there was no negligence on the part of the department, as the Income-tax Officer promptly responded to the defect once it was brought to their attention. The Tribunal's failure to reject the appeal or prescribe a time for amendment under Rule 13 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules was also highlighted. The High Court concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay, which the Tribunal should have considered instead of simply stating there were no reasons for the delay.

Additionally, there was a debate on the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal under section 33(2A) regarding the condonation of appeals presented out of time. The judgment did not delve into this issue extensively based on the specific facts of the case and the framed question. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the revenue, directing the Tribunal to consider the appeals as admitted and proceed with their disposal in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the Tribunal should have taken note of the sufficient cause for the delay in this case.