Voltas Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment |
| Direct Taxation |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Jul-14-1999 |
| Writ Petition No. 14455 of 1999 July 14,1999 |
| [1999]106TAXMAN361(AP) |
| Voltas Ltd. |
| Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Y. Ratnakar for the Petitioner. S.R. Ashok for the Respondent. |
.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........against the orders rejecting the application filed for condonation of delay of 26 days in seeking reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'). a common order in the appeals filed by the petitioner was passed by the tribunal on 25-11-1997 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, which was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 20-12-1997. the last date for filing application seeking reference was 8-2-1998. however, the applica~ tion was filed on 6-3-1998 with a delay of 26 days and an application seeking condonation of delay was filed along with the affidavit of the clerk working in the office of the petitioner's counsel stating that the delay had occurred as the original order got misplaced in the office on account of white-washing. soon after it was traced, the reference was sought. in the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that it was not signed by the counsel and no reasons were given for the delay till the last week of january, 1998 and further that there was no evidence to establish that the deponent of the affidavit was employed in the office of the counsel.2. under section 256, the.....
Prakash Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed against the orders rejecting the application filed for condonation of delay of 26 days in seeking reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). A common order in the appeals filed by the petitioner was passed by the Tribunal on 25-11-1997 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, which was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 20-12-1997. The last date for filing application seeking reference was 8-2-1998. However, the applica~ tion was filed on 6-3-1998 with a delay of 26 days and an application seeking condonation of delay was filed along with the affidavit of the clerk working in the office of the petitioner's counsel stating that the delay had occurred as the original order got misplaced in the office on account of white-washing. Soon after it was traced, the reference was sought. In the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that it was not signed by the counsel and no reasons were given for the delay till the last week of January, 1998 and further that there was no evidence to establish that the deponent of the affidavit was employed in the office of the counsel.
2. Under section 256, the application for reference has to be filed within 60 days from the date it is served and the proviso therein contemplates condoning the delay upto a period of 30 days. It is evident from the af f idavit that the delay has occurred due to misplacement and not tracing the original order in the office of the counsel. Normally, as laid down in various pronomiccinents, the delay aspect. has to be liberall ' v coiisidei-C(1 so as to provide an opportunit ' v to the parties to have a deci*si(ii 011 Inerils. Iri this case, the Tributial fell into error iii expecting the explanatioji for dela even for the days within the limitation period. Moreover, a party should not suff er for (lie lapses on the part of the counsel, especially when the delay is not too Iong. The Explanalion and the reasons given in (fle affidavit do not leave scope for any doubt as to bona fides. In view of the above, the application needs to be allowed by giving an opportunity to the petitioner for seeking reference. The impugned order is set aside and the delay is condoned. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
YOUR SUBSCRIPTION NUMBER
Please note vour subscription number and quote it in all correspondence that you make. Your subscription number is given on the wrapper of the issue each week.