9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner was given five days from the date of receipt of exhibit P-1 to cure the defects. It was also pointed out by exhibit P-1 that there was a delay of ten days in filing the appeal. The petitioner immediately complied with the notice, and the requisite papers were filed on December 6, 1969. The petitioner also filed two applications for condoning the alleged delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal by its order, exhibit P-2, dated July 8, 1970, dismissed the appeals as time-barred, stating that the grounds stated by the petitioner for condoning the delay were vague. The petitioner then filed two applications under section 36 of the Act stating that the period of limitation for filing the appeals had to be reckoned with reference to the certified copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner obtained by the petitioner, and that, if the time taken for obtaining that copy was excluded, the appeals were not time-barred, and praying to rectify the Tribunal's order, exhibit P-2, since the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred was due to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal dismissed these applications by a very detailed order, exhibit P-4, dated Fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er communicated by the Assistant Commissioner to the petitioner as required by section 31(7) of the Act would serve the purpose of a certified copy to accompany the appeal petition, or he should apply for and obtain a certified copy to be attached to the appeal petition. It is obvious that the petitioner bona fide thought that the appeal petition should be accompanied by a certified copy of the order obtained from the Assistant Commissioner on application and payment of the requisite fee in the ordinary course. It is seen that he applied for such a copy within 13 days after the order of the Assistant Commissioner was communicated to him; and he filed the appeal accompanied by this certified copy within 10 days of receiving the same, though he had on the whole 60 days to file the appeal, after excluding the time taken for getting the certified copy. All these things were done through an advocate, which means that the petitioner acted on legal advice, though as it happened ultimately that the advice was wrong in the opinion of the Appellate Tribunal. There has not been even a suggestion at any stage that the petitioner had anything to gain, or he acted with any secondary motive in no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the second question, namely, whether a copy of the order communicated by the Assistant Commissioner under section 31(7) of the Act is a certified copy. The term " certified copy " is not defined in the Act or the Rules made thereunder. But it is defined in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That definition reads: "Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation .--Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section." The above provision creates an obligation on the public officer concerned to giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must apply for and obtain a certified copy of the order, and produce the same along with the appeal petition. That is what the petitioner did in this case; and, admittedly, the appeal was filed far within the prescribed period, if the production of such a copy was necessary, and the time requisite for obtaining that copy is excluded. There is also another aspect of the matter which the Appellate Tribunal has totally forgotten to consider. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunals, though the appeals were disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner by a common order, separate appeals had to be filed before the Tribunal in respect of each of the two assessments concerned in that common order. And each appeal petition has to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed from. Admittedly, one copy of the common order was alone communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, even assuming that the said copy would be certified, he had to apply for and obtain another certified copy to file the two appeals. In that view of the matter, at least one of the appeals had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation; and the only defect in respect of the other appeal would be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Kerala High Court could not apply to the case before it was meaningless. The Travancore Income-tax Act and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were as much self-contained as the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Before I close this judgment, I may also make a few observations regarding the provisions contained in the Agricultural Income-tax Act on the subject under discussion. One thing is that it is a true copy of the assessment order or the appellate order that is communicated by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, to the assessee. Both under sections 31 and 32 of the Act, the period of limitation for an appeal is from the date of communication of the order to the assessee. In the light of such a provision, the further provision in section 69 of the Act that, in computing the period of limitation, " the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such an order shall be excluded " seems to be unnecessary. In the case of appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there is no provision requiring the production of a certified copy of the order appealed from. Section 69 will have no operation in such cases. It is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
