9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (12) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act, questioning the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application under section 66(1) of the Act, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The order of the Tribunal in the appeal is dated 11th January, 1958, and it was received by the assessee on the 31st January, 1958. An advocate of this court filed an application before the Tribunal for rectifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by him. The Tribunal held that the latter application was filed thirty-seven days beyond the period of sixty days provided by section 66(1) of the Act. It was contended before the Tribunal that as the advocate had filed the vakalat in the rectification proceeding, it should be taken that he had an authority to sign the application for reference also. The Tribunal negatived this connection holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been accepted by some of the Other High Courts; but we are bound by the decision of the Madras High Court and the decision of this court. So far as this point is concerned, therefore, there is no difficulty. The question, however, raised by the counsel for the Department is that the vakalat filed by the advocate was not in the original appeal but in the rectification proceeding and that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 66(1) cannot be said to be unconnected with the application for rectification. Both arise out of the same proceedings and on the language of the vakalat-form, we must hold that it would comprehend the application under section 66(1) also. Having regard to the construction which we have placed on the terms of the vakalat, we hold that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is unsusta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
