TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's order made under section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was beyond jurisdiction or inconsistent with the High Court's earlier reference decision. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of unreasonable delay and laches.
Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's order made under section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was beyond jurisdiction or inconsistent with the High Court's earlier reference decision.
Analysis: The Tribunal had dismissed the departmental appeal while holding that the disputed remittance could not be included in the individual assessment. The earlier reference decision held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide matters outside the appeal, but did not disturb the dismissal of the appeal itself. The Court read the two orders together and held that the Tribunal's section 66(5) order restoring the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was in conformity with the reference judgment, and that the departmental challenge to the dismissal of the appeal could not be reopened in this writ proceeding.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order under section 66(5) was upheld and the challenge to it failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of unreasonable delay and laches.
Analysis: The challenged order had been made long before the writ petition was filed, and the petitioner had not pursued the available statutory remedies in time. The Court treated the long delay as fatal to the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by delay and laches.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed both on merits and on the ground of delay, so the writ petition could not be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal's order, read as a whole, is consistent with the reference judgment and the aggrieved party has allowed the available statutory remedies to lapse, extraordinary writ relief will not be granted, especially after unexplained delay and laches.
TaxTMI 
