SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/58813 |
Court | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad |
Decided On | Mar-01-1952 |
Reported in | 195426ITR608(Hyd.) |
Appellant | Hiranand Ramsukh |
Respondent | The State of Hyderabad. |
After the application of the Indian Income-tax Act to the State of Hyderabad, the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal issued Standing Order No. 1 of 1950 made in pursuance of Rule 4 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, vesting the Bombay Bench with jurisdiction for the State of Hyderabad to hear appeals and applications under the Income-tax Act as and from 1st April, 1950. From the foregoing it is clear that the Registrar at Bombay was authorised to receive applications and memoranda of appeals and the act of the assessee either inadvertently or without properly canvassing the true position in filing his applications for reference before a person not authorised to receive them, cannot entitle him to claim exclusion of the period which is spent in transmission of the application between the date of presentation before the Registrar at Hyderabad and the date of receipt by the Registrar, Appellate Tribunal at Bombay, for purpose of computing limitation. After the Indian Income-tax Act together with the rules and the Standing Order No. 1 of 1950 were enforced, the notification of the Hyderabad government made under the Hyderabad Income-tax Act dated March 22, 1949, will be deemed to have been abrogated and there is no force in the contention of counsel for the assessee that since the assessment was being made under the Hyderabad Income-tax Act, the Registrar appointed thereunder as Registrar for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal should be deemed to be the proper receiving authority. Once jurisdiction has been vested in the Tribunal constituted under the Indian Income-tax Act, the proper person to whom the appeal should have been presented was the Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay and not the Registrar of the Income-tax Commissioner at Hyderabad.
Counsel for the assessee has cited the case, Sri Popsing Rice Mills v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, which is inapplicable to the facts of this case, as it is an authority for the proposition that where an assessee has sent a memorandum of appeal by post, the time occupied in transmission of the application should not be computed as part of the period of limitation of 60 days. Rule 7 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules itself authorises the sending of memoranda of appeal by post addressed to the Registrar or to such other officer who is authorised by the Registrar to receive such memoranda. The assessee has presented his applications not to an authorised person but to an unauthorised person and he cannot claim to be entitled to the time spent in transmission of his application by the Registrar of the Income-tax Commissioner at Hyderabad to the Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay.
On a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, it is clear that there is no authority vested in the High Court to condone any delay or to give any benefit to the assessee if the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Several cases have been cited before us by the respondents advocate, viz., Bansilal Gulabchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, (Mofussil), and Hajee Mahboob Bux Ehhan Illahi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., which support this view. In these cases it has been held that the Tribunal has no power to condone any delay in making the application under sub-section (1) of Section 66 and when the assessee applies to the High Court under sub-section (3) thereof, it is impossible for the High Court to say that in dismissing his application the Tribunal acted otherwise than correctly; nor has the High Court been given any power to consider whether there was sufficient cause for delay nor has it any power similar to the power under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay.
In the result, we agree with the observations of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee has been ill-advised but nothing can be done. The application is, therefore, rejected.