1962 (2) TMI 125 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of 'made' under Income Tax Act: Court rules on application receipt timing

The court interpreted the term 'made' in section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, determining that an application is considered made only upon receipt ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'made' in section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act.2. Consideration of time limitation for filing a reference application.3. Power of the High Court to direct the Tribunal to treat an application as made within the time allowed under section 66(1).Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term 'made' in section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that posting the application should be considered as making the application. However, the court held that the word 'made' is equivalent to 'present' in this context, and the application is deemed made only when received by the Tribunal.2. Regarding the time limitation for filing a reference application, the court found that the petitioner's application was time-barred as per the provisions of the Act and the Appellate Tribunal Rules. The court emphasized that the task of the petitioner is complete only upon the receipt of the application by the Tribunal, as per Rule 8 and Rule 7(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946.3. The petitioner also contended that the High Court has the power to condone the delay and direct the Tribunal to entertain the application under section 66(1). However, the court clarified that unless it is satisfied that the Tribunal's decision is incorrect, it cannot direct the Tribunal to re-entertain the application. The court cited precedents and highlighted that the High Court does not have the inherent power to condone delay in such cases.4. The court referred to the decision in Bansilal Gulabchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax, where it was held that the Tribunal has no power to condone any delay in making the application under section 66(1). The High Court can only require the Tribunal to treat the application as made within the time allowed if it is not satisfied with the Tribunal's decision. The court concurred with this interpretation and rejected the petitioner's application in this case.5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, citing the lack of jurisdiction to direct the Tribunal to entertain the application due to the time limitation and absence of evidence to challenge the Tribunal's decision. No costs were awarded in this matter.