9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86 of the Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The three questions raised in each of them are identical. The Reference Applications were filed on2-4-1987. 2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the assessee respondent to the effect that these applications were barred by time as they were late by 220 days each whereas in terms of the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax,Delhi(Central) II,New Delhi: "Please refer to your letter dated20-8-1987wherein it has been pointed out that aforementioned RAs. filed by the Deptt. are barred by 220 days. On going through the Receipt Register maintained in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I New Delhi, it is found that the order in ITA No. 141, 142 and 143/D/85 dated 17-6-1986 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 1987 (31) E. L. T. 643 (Cal.); and (2) Central Inland water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath ganguly AIR 1986 SC 1571. 3. we have considered the rival submissions as also the decisions referred to above. The first point which requires to be noticed is that according to the office report, the service of the order in question was twice refused, i.e., on26-6-1986and24-7-1986later the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that mere averments made in the affidavit without the support of records was not reliable and relevant. In the present case there is only a letter and not even an affidavit from the concerned Officer/Official of the department. In fact in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. the Supreme Court repelled the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the Excise and Customs departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se there is no request for the condonation of delay from the sides of the department. It is another matter that even if such a request was there and the delay was held explained, we could not have condemned a delay of more than 30 days under section 27(2). Here since service, by refusal, was made on26-6-1986the delay was of 220 days which could not be condoned. The assessee respondent's preliminar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
