Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Court upholds extension provision in Income-tax Act, deems it constitutional. Alternative remedies available. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for a 30-day extension beyond the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court upholds extension provision in Income-tax Act, deems it constitutional. Alternative remedies available.
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for a 30-day extension beyond the prescribed 60 days for filing a reference application. It noted that the provision does not violate constitutional provisions and declined to declare it ultra vires. The court emphasized that alternative remedies, such as a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, could be sought in exceptional cases where the 90-day limit is insufficient. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the proviso's validity.
Issues: Challenge to constitutional validity of proviso to section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The court addressed the challenge to the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for an extended period not exceeding 30 days beyond the prescribed 60 days for filing a reference application. The petitioner argued that there might be cases where even 90 days are insufficient for filing a reference application. The court noted that while other provisions in the Income-tax Act do not specify a maximum period for condoning delays, the proviso in question sets a clear limit of 30 days for extension. The court refrained from questioning Parliament's decision in this regard and found no violation of constitutional provisions, such as article 14, by the proviso.
In exceptional cases where a reference application could not be filed within 90 days due to sufficient cause, the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution could provide relief, as an alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition. The court declined to declare the proviso ultra vires, highlighting that if it were quashed, the petitioner would only have 60 days instead of 90 days to file the application. Therefore, the court concluded that nullifying the proviso would not benefit the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
