High Court orders thorough inquiry into date of service for appellate order, assess evidence.

The High Court allowed the writ application, vacated the order rejecting the reference, and directed the Tribunal to conduct a thorough inquiry into the date of service, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence supporting the claim of receiving the appellate order on a specific date. If the claim is not substantiated, appropriate legal action can be taken. Justice B. K. Ray concurred with the decision and the directions for the Tribunal to re-examine the case with a focus on conducting a fair inquiry into the date of service.

---

---

Issues: Application for reference under Income-tax Act of 1961, date of service of appellate order, acceptance of date in acknowledgment due form, need for an inquiry by the Tribunal, dispute of fact, availability of judicial discretion, requirement for further evidence, injustice due to summary rejection, opportunity for the assessee to establish case, direction to Tribunal for re-disposal.

Analysis:

The petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act of 1961, applied to the Appellate Tribunal for a reference to the High Court. The Tribunal found that the appellate order was served on March 4, 1972, based on the acknowledgment due form. However, the assessee claimed the actual date of service was March 6, 1972, supported by a certificate from the Postmaster. The Tribunal dismissed the application as belated without further inquiry, leading to the current application for a certiorari against the order.

The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have conducted an inquiry into the discrepancy between the dates in the acknowledgment due form and the Postmaster's certificate. The Tribunal's failure to investigate the truth behind the dates and reliance solely on the acknowledgment due form was challenged as a denial of justice to the assessee. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal, as a quasi-judicial authority, had a duty to ascertain the correct date of service and provide an opportunity for the assessee to establish the mistake.

The standing counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on a dispute of fact regarding the date of service. He relied on a Supreme Court decision to assert that the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution did not permit appellate or revisional powers in cases involving factual disputes. However, the High Court noted that despite the factual dispute, the Tribunal's approach lacked a proper inquiry into the conflicting evidence presented by the parties.

The High Court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the need for a fair inquiry to determine the actual date of service. It criticized the Tribunal for not exercising its jurisdiction to ascertain the timeliness of the application properly. The Court directed the Tribunal to conduct a thorough inquiry into the date of service, allowing the assessee to present evidence supporting the claim of receiving the appellate order on March 6, 1972. The Court emphasized that if the assessee failed to substantiate the claim, appropriate legal action could be taken. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ application, vacated the order rejecting the reference, and instructed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in light of the directions provided.

In a concurring opinion, Justice B. K. Ray agreed with the decision and the directions issued by the High Court for the Tribunal to re-examine the case with a focus on conducting a fair inquiry into the date of service.

---