9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax made on February 23, 1970. The facts that have given rise to the writ petition may briefly be stated. The petitioner, a partnership, was assessed in respect of the income for the year ended December 31, 1957, by the order dated August 22, 1959. The income on foot of which the petitioner was taxed was determined at Rs. 46,254. The assessment was reopened by the Income-tax Officer who came to the conclusion that the assessee should be taxed in respect of a further sum of Rs. 50,000. The order of revised assessment was made on July 23, 1963. There was an appeal preferred by the assessee, the result of which was that he has succeeded in part and the addition to the income was determined at Rs. 24,500. The order of the Appellate Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The sentence relating to the condonation of delay reads thus: " This revision petition is admittedly belated and I see no justification for condoning the delay." To say that the application is admittedly belated may not be quite correct. The stand taken by the petitioner is that in one view of the matter there was no delay at all. The hypothesis on which the argument was presented was that the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1958-59 furnished the starting point for limitation for revision petition. This hypothesis was rejected by the Commissioner. In other words, the Commissioner did not accept the stand of the petitioner that the revision petition was in time. Mr. Ramachandra Rao, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has a bearing on the question of delay. Neither that sentence nor the order taken as a whole gives any indication that the question whether sufficient cause exists was considered by the Commissioner. It is, therefore, necessary that the matter should be remitted to the Commissioner for considering whether sufficient cause has been made out for accepting the revision petition filed beyond the prescribed time. It may be mentioned that Mr. Ramachandra Rao contends that the Commissioner fell into an error in thinking that there is a delay of 7 years, 3 months and 4 days. According to counsel the occasion for presenting a revision petition cannot be said to have arisen prior to the reopening of the proceedings for the assessment year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt pursues a proceeding open to him at law and the pursuit thereof is in conformity with the prescribed procedure, he cannot be said. to be under a legal compulsion to institute a parallel proceeding by anticipating an unfavourable verdict in one proceeding and to provide for the contingency of his failure therein. The success in the proceeding taken by him obviates the need for the other proceeding. In such cases on the basis of normal juridical standards it must be held that the cause of action for the alternative procedure arises only on the termination of the other proceeding. Law discountenances multiplicity of proceedings and does not subject litigants to the burden of parallel or multiple proceedings when success in one would preclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
