1971 (11) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

This special appeal is directed against an order of Manchanda J. by which he has reviewed his earlier order allowing Writ Petition filed by the appellant - writ petition was filed against proceedings for the recovery of arrears of income-tax and was based on the ground that the recovery proceedings were time-barred - In the review applications filed by the respondents, it was asserted that two very important and relevant documents had been suppressed by the appellant On the ground that relevant documents had been suppressed as well as on the ground that, on the basis of these relevant documents, the recovery proceedings had been taken within time, Manchanda J. allowed the review applications and dismissed the writ petition - held that judge was justified in allowing the review petition and dismissing the writ petition

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of an order allowing a writ petition based on time-barred recovery proceedings.
2. Allegation of suppression of important documents leading to a different conclusion.
3. Technical objections raised during the review application.
4. Competency of a review application in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Time-barred review application and exclusion of time taken for obtaining certified copies.
6. Justification of the review judge's decision based on the extension of time for payment.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a review of an order allowing a writ petition concerning time-barred recovery proceedings. Initially, the writ petition was allowed based on the argument that the recovery proceedings were beyond the limitation period as the recovery certificate was issued after the prescribed time. However, in the review applications, it was alleged that crucial documents extending the time for payment were suppressed by the appellant, leading to a different conclusion. The review judge accepted this argument and dismissed the writ petition based on the extended time for payment mentioned in the documents.

During the review application, several technical objections were raised. These objections included the competency of a review application in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the time-barred nature of the review application, and the availability of an appeal against the original judgment. The review judge rejected these objections, citing legal precedents and justifying the acceptance of the review application.

The judgment also addressed the issue of the competency of a review application in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. It was established that the High Court has the power to review an order made under article 226, as confirmed by a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the appellant's contention that no review application lay in this case was deemed invalid.

Regarding the time-barred nature of the review application, it was determined that the application was filed within the permissible time frame, considering the exclusion of the time taken for obtaining certified copies. The review judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition based on the extended time for payment was upheld as justified after examining the records of the income-tax department.

Ultimately, the appeal challenging the review judge's decision was dismissed, emphasizing the correctness of the review judge's conclusions and the justification for dismissing the writ petition. The judgment concluded by vacating the stay order and upholding the dismissal of the appeal.