1992 (5) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f section 24 the appeals should have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal on or before 16-11-1990 which is within 60 days from the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Commissioner to the CIT. The appeals are, therefore, barred by time by 10 days. By virtue of sub-section (3) of section 24 of the Act the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 24 if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the said appeal within that period. The Deputy Commissioner who has filed these appeals has filed a petition dated 26-11-1990 bearing No. DC/951-P/Spl. R.8/Cal. addressed to the Assistant Registrar. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r preparing the requisite appeal papers again submitted the same to the CIT's office and in this process there was a delay of 10 days which requires condonation. In support of his submission the Departmental Representative has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the condonation petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax and the counter objection petition filed by the respondent-assessee we are of the opinion that the D.C. has not properly explained the delay to our satisfaction and, therefore, we are unable to condone the delay in filing the present appeals. We have perused the provisions o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner is a very learned official of the Income-tax Department and we know that he can himself suo motu and independently, after summoning the concerned records from the Assessing Officer within the long period of 60 days, form an opinion whether or not to file second appeal to the Tribunal. The Commissioner in law is, therefore, only expected to be satisfied about the correctness of the order of the Appellate Commissioner and for that purpose in our view, he need not be guided or instructed by his sub-ordinates (Assessing Officers) through the medium of a scrutiny report as is mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner in the petition for condonation of the delay. There is no evidence on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... five days which, in our opinion, in the ordinary and normal course should not have taken more than 30 minutes. Upon considering all these facts and situation we can do no better than to form an opinion that the Deputy Commissioner has taken the limitation period prescribed in section 24 of the Act in a very light and casual manner. Perhaps or may be he was under the impression that the Tribunal will certainly condone the delay in a routine manner not attaching any importance to the limitation period prescribed in section 24(1) of the Act. 8. Like any other Government Official the Deputy Commissioner (Assessing Officer) is also an Organ and Instrumentality of the State and as citizens/ tax-payers scrupulously obey and follow the law, so sh....