9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onation of delay be treated as pending until the Commissioner had disposed of the said application and the one for condonation of delay. In the year 1995 there was a search and seizure operation which was carried on by the Income-tax Department under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act). During the course of the said search proceedings, the books of account of Rajda Polymers, a partnership firm of which the late Lilabati Rajda was a partner, were also seized. In respect of the assessment year 1990-91, an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the 1961 Act was issued on October 9, 1992, by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 8(2), wherein a sum of Rs. 2,80,925 was determined as payable. Thereafter a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected, the appeal is non est. Therefore, there is no question of pendency of an appeal or revisional application unless the delay is condoned. He also drew our attention to the provisions of section 264 of the Act of 1961, which provides that unless the revisional application is admitted, it cannot be said that the revisional application is pending. Section 88 of the Scheme of 1998 provides that any person who makes the declaration to the designated authority on or before December 31, 1998, which has been extended by one more month, that is, till January 31, 1999, his declaration shall be considered for settlement of tax arrears in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 132, subsequently the executor had enough time to file a petition under section 264. In fact, no case has been made out for condoning such delay of about six years." The learned single judge has also confirmed the order of the Commissioner, under the Scheme of 1998 holding that when the revisional application is not pending on the date of the declaration, the declaration cannot be considered under the Scheme of 1998. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in Asgarali Nazarali's case AIR 1957 SC 503. In paragraphs 21 and 22, their Lordships of the apex court observed as under : "We do not accept this contention. It cannot be denied that on July 28, 1952, the date of the commencement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957 SC 503, the facts are that on July 28, 1952, that is, the date of the commencement of the impugned Act, the case was pending before the Presidency Magistrate. Only the case of the prosecution was closed on that date and the accused had not yet been called upon to enter upon his defence. Therefore, in that case, the undisputed fact is that the case was pending. Mere completion of the evidence of the prosecution does not mean that the case was finalised. In Mamuda Khateen, AIR 1976 Cal 415, the issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this court where the facts are akin to the facts of this case. In paragraph 7 the Full Bench of this court observed as under : "It seems to us that when an appeal is barred by limitation and an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
