| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 17 1975 SLD 17 (1976) 34 TAX 10 1984 PTCL 326 |
Lahore High Court
Tax Reference No. 8 of 1968, decision dated: 24-02-1976
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Sh. Sharif Hussain, Advocate, for the applicant Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the
Respondent
Tax Reference No. 8 of 1968, decision dated: 24-02-1976
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Sh. Sharif Hussain, Advocate, for the applicant Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the
Respondent
AFTAB MEDICAL STORES, DERA GHAZI KHAN
VS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 30(2),33
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5,6,14
[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)].......Section 33-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation - Appeal decided by Appellate Assistant Commissioner exparte for default of appearance Assessees subsequent application for restoration of appeal rejected by Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Appeal to Tribunal-Time spent in prosecuting the application for restoration of the appeal Whether should be excluded in computing the period of limitation-Held yes-Time so spent in the beginning or at the end of the period of limitation- Whether a relevant factor--Held no-Limitation Act, 1908, sec, 14. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessees appeal exparte for default of appearance and the order so passed was served on him on 25-1-1965. On 27-1-1965 the assessee made an application to the appellate Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the appeal. This application was rejected on 28-1-1965. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal on 29-3-1965 i.e. three days after expiry of the period of limitation, requesting that under section 14 of the Limitation Act the time spent in prosecuting the application for restoration Of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that three days were spent towards the very beginning of the period of limitation and the appellant was negligent in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. On a reference the High Court, reversing the order of the Tribunal : Held, that there was in fact no delay in the presentation of the appeal to the Tribunal. The effect of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is neither to entitle the appellant concerned to a condonation of delay nor does it prescribe circumstances justifying such condonation; this Section gives a mandate for the exclusion of the period mentioned in it from computing the period of limitation, if Section 14 is, therefore, applicable the factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal could not have been looked into at all. B. Limitation Act 1908-Sections 6, 14-Provisions of section 14 of the Act- Whether applicable to the…
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