| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5148 = 1966 SLD 5148 = 1966 PLD 226 |
Dacca High Court
Petition No. 31 of 1965| Petition No. 36 of 1965|Petitions Nos. 31 and 36 of 1965, decided on 27th July 1965.
Presented By: Abdus Sattar and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ
Asrarul Hossain, Md. Nurul Huq, R. Huq and M. Hassan for Petitioners. Afzalul Haque with K. Harunur Rashid for
Respondents (in Petition No. 31 of 1965). Razzaq Rahman for
Respondents (in Petition No. 36 of 1965).
Petition No. 31 of 1965| Petition No. 36 of 1965|Petitions Nos. 31 and 36 of 1965, decided on 27th July 1965.
Presented By: Abdus Sattar and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ
Asrarul Hossain, Md. Nurul Huq, R. Huq and M. Hassan for Petitioners. Afzalul Haque with K. Harunur Rashid for
Respondents (in Petition No. 31 of 1965). Razzaq Rahman for
Respondents (in Petition No. 36 of 1965).
EASTERN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., CHITTAGONG-Petitioner
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents AND G. MERAJUDDIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)
Section: 33-A(2)
Interpretation of statutes-Statute to be understood in accordance with plain meaning of language used therein. Caries on Statute Law, Fifth Edn., p. 68 and Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edo., Vol. 36, p. 391 ref. Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 33-A(2)-Expression "date of the order"-Interpretation-Application for revision Limitation-Period to be counted from date "when order is actually made" and not "when assessee comes to know of order" or has notice thereof. O. A. O. A. M. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income tax, Madras 19 I T R 4& ; Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raj Singh 37 I T R 264 ; Mahabir Prashad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab 22 I T R 296; Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn., Vol. 36, p. 391 and Cries on Statute Law, Fifth Edn., p. 86 ref. (Kavanna, Vana Ena) Swaminathan v. Lakshmanan Chettiar and another A I R 1930 Mad. 490 ; Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another A I R 1961 S C 1500 ; State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan. Begum and another A I R 1963 S C 1604 ; Nripendra N. Majumdar v. N. M. Bardhan and others A I R 1959 Cal. 219 and Kajaria Traders (Ind.) Ltd. v. Messrs Foreign Import and Export Association A I R 1961 Bam. 65 distinguished. Dates of hearing : 29th and 30th June 1965. JUDGMENT SATTAR, J.-The point raised in these two petitions which though arising out of different sets of fact is the same and hence they have been heard together and are disposed of by one judgment. The short question that falls for decision relates to the interpretation of subsection (2) of section 33-A of the Income-tax Act., In each of these cases, the Commissioner of Income-tax has rejected the application for revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was time-barred as it was filed beyond one year "from the date of the order". It is contended that, as the petitions for revision were filed within one year from the dates the orders were served on the petitioners, they were in time. The fact that the revisional applications before the Commissioner were filed…