9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 Assistant Commissioner was made on February 28, 1967. It may be mentioned that the sum of Rs. 24,500 which was added to the taxable income represents the value of the closing stock, which, according to the Income-tax Officer, ought to have been included in the return for the assessment year that ended with December 31, 1957. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, who appears for the petitioner, does not accept the Commissioner's finding as correct. His argument before me is two-fold. In the first place he submits that the Commissioner did not apply the law correctly when he came to the conclusion that the cause of action to the assessee for the revision petition arose on the decision made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 1958-59. The order in that respect was made only in 1963. Counsel, therefore, contends that the Commissioner's assumption that there was a delay of 7 years and odd is untenable. It is not necessary for me to go into this question here since the matter is being remitted to the Commissioner. It is open to the petitioner to draw the atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeding 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 preclude the need for the initiation of another. It appears to me that there is no need here for a departure from that salutary well-known principle. No litigant should, on pain of the penalty of limitation, be under duress to conduct concurrently two proceedings where the need for one would depend on the failure to secure a favourable result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
