TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Denies Relief for Time-Barred Application; Emphasizes Constitutional Jurisdiction Review</h1> The court dismissed the application, holding that relief under section 66(3) of the 1922 Act was not available for a time-barred application under section ... An application for reference was not made to the Tribunal within the time limit specified - In such a case, can a direct reference be made to the High Court - Held, No Issues Involved:1. Applicability of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.2. Jurisdiction under section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.3. Jurisdiction under section 66(2) of the 1922 Act and section 256(2) of the 1961 Act.4. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.5. Applicability of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the reference application.6. Interpretation of 'proceedings for the assessment' under section 297(2)(a) of the 1961 Act.7. Effect of the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908:The Tribunal held that section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to an application under section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The assessee conceded that the application was barred by time and acknowledged that section 5 could not be invoked as it was not extended to proceedings under section 66(1). This is due to section 5 not being included in section 29(2)(a) of the 1908 Act, although it has been included in the corresponding provision of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. Jurisdiction under section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922:The court noted that sub-section (3) of section 66 could not be invoked by the assessee as the decision of the Tribunal regarding the application being time-barred was unassailable. The court could not grant relief under this provision as the application was indeed barred by time.3. Jurisdiction under section 66(2) of the 1922 Act and section 256(2) of the 1961 Act:The court disagreed with the submission that the application could lie under these provisions. The Tribunal had not refused to state the case on the ground that no question of law arose. Therefore, neither section 66(2) of the 1922 Act nor section 256(2) of the 1961 Act could be invoked for a mandamus to make a reference.4. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution:The court agreed that its jurisdiction under Article 227 could be invoked if a Tribunal within its territorial jurisdiction passed an order without jurisdiction or refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is akin to the revisional powers of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Applicability of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the reference application:The court examined whether the application should have been filed under section 256(1) of the 1961 Act. The proviso to section 256(1) allows the Tribunal to extend the period of limitation by thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. However, the court concluded that if the 1961 Act did not apply, the Tribunal's order was correct. The main issue was whether the application for reference lay under the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act.6. Interpretation of 'proceedings for the assessment' under section 297(2)(a) of the 1961 Act:The court held that the expression 'proceedings for the assessment' includes all proceedings related to assessment, including appeals, references, and revisions. The Supreme Court had given the term 'assessment' the widest possible connotation, encompassing the entire process from filing the return to determining the tax payable. Therefore, the application for reference was part of the assessment proceedings under the 1922 Act.7. Effect of the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1962:The court noted that clause 4 of the 1962 Order required that all proceedings, including applications for reference, be dealt with under the 1922 Act if the return of income was filed before April 1, 1962. The court rejected the argument that clause 4 was outside the scope of section 298, affirming that the Central Government had the authority to issue the Order to resolve difficulties arising from the repeal of the 1922 Act.Conclusion:The court dismissed the application, holding that:- An application under section 66(3) of the 1922 Act does not lie against an order refusing to entertain a time-barred application under section 66(1).- Neither section 66(2) of the 1922 Act nor section 256(2) of the 1961 Act can be invoked if the Tribunal refuses to consider an application on the ground of being time-barred.- Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for setting aside an order where a Tribunal erroneously refused to exercise jurisdiction.- The Tribunal cannot extend the period of limitation for applications under section 66(1) of the 1922 Act.- The Tribunal can condone delays up to thirty days under section 256(1) of the 1961 Act.- The term 'proceedings for the assessment' under section 297(2)(a) includes all related proceedings.- All proceedings related to assessments for returns filed before April 1, 1962, must be dealt with under the 1922 Act.The application was dismissed without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
