TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation provided in sub-section (2) of section 249. This has since been dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. This order has since been challenged before this court on various grounds, particularly, on the ground that the order is perverse and this court should interfere with the same. Relying on section 273B, he contends that the failure to comply with section 269SS was supported by reasonable cause and as such no penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner. Mr. Shome, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, points out that there is no merit since there was delay of about three years and that there was a reminder, despite which the appeal was not preferred within time. He also points out from the impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of limitation. In the said order, the merits of this case have not been gone into. As such, this court cannot undertake the exercise to that extent. Admittedly, the order was passed under section 271D of the Act. Such an order is appealable under section 246(2)(ee) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was filed. Such appeal, in view of section 249(2) of the Act, is to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty as provided under section 249(2)(b) of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 249 of the Act empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not pref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olve elements of facts, which are disputed, ordinarily the court is not supposed to exercise such discretion. A question involving determination of facts can be dealt with more efficaciously by the alternative forum. Inasmuch as, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, this court cannot undertake determination of disputed questions of fact. In the present case, as it appears that the remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal under section 253 is not only adequate but also more efficacious, since the question involves elements of disputed facts. As such it can best be decided by the Tribunal. Order: In the circumstances, this writ petition fails and is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy. It will be open....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne to invoke it, at its discretion. When there are adequate alternative remedy, the court may decline to exercise its discretion. When the court having jurisdiction declines to exercise it, in its discretion, on the ground of alternative remedy, it can pass to satisfy the test of justifiability in a given situation. Appropriate order can be passed to secure the ends and interest of justice. The court would be failing in its duty, while declining to exercise its discretion to invoke writ jurisdiction, if it fails to secure the ends of justice, having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case. The refusal to exercise discretion is a refusal to determine the case on its merits. Such an order does not dose the avenue for challenging....