9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner stating that his copy shows that it was 17-11-1936. The point, however, in view of the decision arrived at is not very material. A copy of the appellate order was asked for on the 13th February, 1937, intimation of the order passed having been received by the assessee on the 10th February, 1937. The copy was delivered on the 25th February, 1937. The revision under Section 33 was dispatched from Delhi on the 2nd or 3rd February, 1938, and was received in the office of the Commissioner on the 4th February, 1938. As regards the first assessment order of the year 1933-34 the Commissioner held that the application was belated and that it was after a year from the date of the appellate order; he dismissed the application on the 25th Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revious order. In reply, the learned counsel for the Commissioner contends that the previous decisions : were right and the judgment of the Full Bench ignored the use of the word prejudicial in Section 33 where the Income Tax Commissioner was required to hear the assessee before passing any order prejudicial to him. The contention was that it had never been the practice nor had it ever been held that the Income Tax Commissioner if he rejected the petition or application was bound to hear the assessee. It is unnecessary to decide this point in view of the decision to which we have come on the other point, but I may remark that the word prejudicial in Section 33 need not have the same meaning as the word prejudicial in Section 66 (3). In Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated where there is no limit of time, prescribed by law, during which the application may be put in. As pointed out, Section 33 does not contemplate an application at all, hence probably the absence of the time limit for such application. But be that as it may I do not think that holding that an application is belated depends on the existence of a time limit at all. In the case of this Court, it has frequently been held that revisions to which the limitation applicable would be found under the general Art. 181 are belated after six months or after the expiry of 90 days. This shows that the application may be belated even though it is put in within the time prescribed. Similarly, equitable reliefs like injunction or specific performance are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns whether of fact or of law arising on the procedure to be followed or not followed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in hearing or disposing of appeals and revisions. I, therefore, do not think that any mandamus could possibly issue to the Commissioner, pointing out to him that he was wrong in holding that this application was made after a year or enquiring whether if the facts were as they really are his decision on the subject might have been different. This is a matter entirely for the Commissioner to decide for himself. There remain only to notice one point that in rejecting the application for a reference as regards the second assessment the Commissioner stated that the matter had already been dealt with by his predecessor and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
