9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Assistant Controller by his decision dated December 30, 1971, valued the share of the deceased for duty at Rs. 69,210. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller, Akola, who by his decision dated March 12, 1975, allowed the appeal in part. This decision of the Appellate Controller was communicated to the petitioner on June 30, 1975. An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from the decision of the Appellate Controller lies within 60 days under s. 63 of the said Act. The petitioner sent a telegram to the Appellate Tribunal on August 26, 1975, requesting for a copy of the challan form for the purpose of payment of fees to be sent along with the appeal memo. He also sent a letter dated August 27, 1975, to the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese contentions did not find favour with the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal pointed out that under the rules made under the I.T. Rules, 1962, Form No. 36 which was admittedly the form prescribed also in the present case contained a note in which it was clearly stated that the Appellate Tribunal will not accept cheques, drafts, hundies or other negotiable instruments. In the present case, admittedly, there was neither cash nor challan sent prior to August 30, 1975, and what was sent by post on August 29, 1975, was a draft which was contrary to the said note. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner had ample time from June 30, 1975, to take steps to file the appeal and even on the date that he chose to send the telegram or to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draft was sent by registered post and the same was received by the Appellate Tribunal on September 2, 1975, i.e., after the period of limitation was over. As regards the contention that the provision in the said note on Form No. 36 was merely directory and not mandatory, it must be remembered that the Appellate Tribunal was bound to follow even the said directory provision assuming that the provision is directory and not mandatory, and if the Appellate Tribunal has followed the said provision it cannot be said that the Tribunal has acted unreasonably or improperly. We are also not satisfied that the petitioner acted diligently in the present case. Admittedly, the said note was part of Form No. 36 which is the form in which the appeal is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
