TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect that these applications were barred by time as they were late by 220 days each whereas in terms of the provisions of section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 a delay of more than thirty days could not be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal. In support of the objection the following office note was relied upon : "Order was first sent on26-6-1986to the CIT, Central but they refused to accept the same. Order was again sent on24-7-1986to the CIT atC.R.Buildingbut they also refused to accept the same. After that the copy of the order pertaining to the Commissioner was again sent to the Commissioner concerned under list of pending orders and the same were then received by the same office (CIT, Central) on2-2-1987." On behalf of the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi(Central) II,New Delhi." The contention raised was that according to the Receipt Register maintained in the office of the CIT (Central) I,New Delhi, the order of the Appellate Tribunal had been received on2-2-1987and so the Reference Applications were filed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. In the present case there is only a letter and not even an affidavit from the concerned Officer/Official of the department. In fact in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. the Supreme Court repelled the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the Excise and Customs department that the Collector of Customs being a very responsible and a high ranking officer, there was no possibility of the power being misused or being used arbitrarily. The Supreme Court observed that such a submission ignored the fact that however highly placed a person may be, he must necessarily possess human frailties. Thus it was for the department itself to explain as to why the service was refused at the same dak counter on26-6-1986and24-7-19....