Double taxation relief claim held valid despite non-prescribed form, where essential particulars were filed within limitation.

A statutory right to double taxation relief and refund under the Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be defeated merely because the claim was made by letter rather than in the prescribed form, where the letter and annexed statement contained all particulars needed to compute the relief and were filed within the limitation period. The prescribed form requirement was treated as directory and procedural, not as a condition that qualified the substantive refund right. The later formal application did not create a fresh claim or render the relief time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for double taxation relief, made by letter with the requisite particulars but not in the prescribed form, was a valid application within time and entitled the assessee to refund.

Analysis: Relief from double taxation was created by the statutory notification and the rules framed under section 49A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Rule 3 conferred the right to refund on proof of foreign tax payment on the same income, rule 4 required an application in a prescribed form, and rule 5 incorporated the four-year limitation found in section 50. The decisive question was whether the prescribed form requirement was mandatory so that non-compliance destroyed the claim, or merely directory so long as the application contained all necessary particulars within the limitation period. The letter dated 26 May 1948, with its annexed statement, furnished all particulars needed to compute the relief, and the later formal letter did not create a new claim so as to make the demand time-barred. The requirement as to form was treated as procedural and not as qualifying the substantive right to refund.

Conclusion: The application dated 26 May 1948 was a valid and timely claim for refund, and the assessee was entitled to double taxation relief.

Final Conclusion: The decision recognizes that a statutory refund right cannot be defeated merely because the application was not filed in the exact prescribed form, where the essential particulars and limitation requirements were otherwise satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a substantive right to refund and the prescribed form requirement is not expressed to be essential, compliance with the form is directory if the application otherwise contains the particulars necessary to determine the claim within the limitation period.

---