9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the remittance of Rs. 100 was not received within time. It was also held that this application for reference was not sufficient for referring all the questions asked for in the application as they related to two cross-appeals and that a second application for reference was also necessary. The facts which have given rise to the questions may be stated in short. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 18th September, 1962, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. His appeal was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,800 was deleted from the income as proper expense on entertainment. Against this appellate order there were two appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee's appeal was No. 5587 of 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer also appealed against this deletion of Rs. 4,800 and his appeal was No. 5594 of 1966-67. The Tribunal consolidated both these appeals, heard them together and disposed them of by one order dated 2nd August, 1968. By this order the Tribunal upheld the original assessment order, allowed the appeal of the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The result of this order was that the original assessment order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order which disposed of both these appeals was really only one order which directed that the assessment had to be maintained and that the assessee's first application for reference against this order is competent containing all the questions of law which arose out of this order. According to learned counsel, it was not necessary for the assessee to file a second application formally relating to two appeals by number. The contention on behalf of the department is that section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provided that the money should be accompanied with the papers and if, therefore, the money, even if it did not accompany the papers, had reached the office within limitation, it was possible to take the view that there was substantial compliance. But, in case the money was not received by the Tribunal within limitation, it cannot possibly be said that there was compliance with the provisions of the section and, consequently, the order of the Tribunal was correct. The relevant part of section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows: "Within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under sub-section (4) of section 33 the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Income-tax Officer and not by the office of the Tribunal so that if such a challan is accompanied with the papers, the money does not really reach the office of the Tribunal. The office merely receives an assurance that the money has reached the Government through some department. It has also to be noted that there are certain things which have been prohibited by this note, e.g., payment by cheques or other negotiable instruments. It is silent about payment being sent by money order or through other methods not specified either way. These provisions make it clear that the method by which the money has to reach the Tribunal is flexible and that any reasonable process can be utilized for sending the money to the Tribunal. It is expressly provided under the rules that the application and the papers themselves can be sent by registered post. Where the assessee resides outside the station, he sends the papers by registered post. Obviously, the cash cannot accompany the application and he has to send it either through post office or through some bank. If under the note to the form a payment to the bank and the receipt thereof is considered as sufficient payment within time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In a case where there is one order by the assessing authority and against that one order two cross-appeals have been filed and as a result of the cross-appeals that original order is altered to a certain extent after disposal of the arguments advanced by the two parties in their respective appeals, the ultimate order which results by way of disposal of the two appeals is the one order which alters the original order in a particular way. We are of opinion that in such a case where there is only one assessment order out of which two appeals arise and as a result of the disposal of both the appeals one order is passed amending the assessment order or refusing to amend the order, there is only one order against which it is necessary to file only one application under section 66 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 33 enjoins the Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both the parties to the appeal, to "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit". This order, to our mind, must be the order which affects the original assessment. The order here does not mean only the reasoning in support of the order. It is the operative order that matters and which affects the assessment. Whether this order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
