Amritsar Transport Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - cit .this decision clearly covers the present case too and, consequently, the questions referred are answered in the same manner, that is, in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.s.s. sodhi, j. 1. the matter here pertains to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74.2. the questions of law referred for the opinion of this court are as under :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the tribunal that the remuneration paid to shri jagmohan mehra and shri manmohan mehra was unreasonable within the meaning of section 40c of the income-tax act, 1961, is based on any material ? (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in disallowing any part of the salary paid to shri jagmohan mehra and shri manmohan mehra during the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ? (3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the sums of rs. 3,779 and rs. 18,819 being expenditure incurred by the assessee-company by way of serving tea, coffee and coca cola, etc., during the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively, to the customers during the course of business is covered under the definition of 'entertainment' and hit by the provisions of section 37(2a) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 3. similar questions arising between the same parties for the assessment year 1970-71 had earlier been referred to this court, which were answered by this court in amritsar transport company private limited v. cit . this decision clearly covers the present case too and, consequently, the questions referred are answered in the same manner, that is, in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.