Case Details

Citation(s)
1954 SLG 123 1954 SLD 123 1954 PLD 32
Lahore High Court
Civil Miscellaneous No. 68/C of 1952, decided on 27th January 1953
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., AND KAYANI, J
Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner. Akbar Ali for
Respondents

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB AND N.W.F P.

VS

MESSRS. BOMBAY CLOTH HOUSE, Lahore

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 66A

Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 66-A-Appeal lies to Federal Court when High Court certifies case to be fit one for appeal. An appeal lies only under section 66-A and it consequently lies where the High Court certifies the case to be a fit one for appeal to the Federal Court, but not otherwise. The Tribunal, in overlooking the fact that the delay of every single day had to be explained, had not exercised its discretion judicially. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Income-tax Commissioner Delhi I L R 9 Lah. 284 (P C); Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Chief Revenue Authority of Bombay I L R 47 Bom. 724 (P C) ; Gurmukh Rai v. Secretary of State for India in Council 1934 I T R 412 and Feroze Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax I L R 12 Lah. 166 ref. ORDER KAYANI, J.-This is a petition by the Commissioner of Income Tax for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, arising in the following circumstances. The respondent firm had applied for a renewal of registration under section 26-A of the Income Tax Act and the Income-tax Officer having refused registra­tion, the respondent successfully appealed to the Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer thereupon preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal although time-barred was admitted by the Tribunal under sub­section (2) (a) of section 33 and accepted. The respondent assessee then applied to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions to the High Court :- 1. Whether the so-called facts and circumstances found by the Appellate Tribunal are such as to constitute sufficient cause for admitting a time-barred appeal ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in exer­cising discretion and arbitrarily cancelling registration under section 26-A without judicial consideration ? The Tribunal being of the opinion that the first was a question of fact refused to refer it, but referred the second question. We, however, required it 'to state the case on this point also, and when it was referred to us, we held that the delay in filing the appeals after a certain date had not been explained and that in these circumstances the appeals should not have been admitted. It is from this…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492