| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 847 1982 SLD 847 (1982) 133 ITR 338 |
Delhi High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 57 OF 1971 DECIDED BY DELHI HIGH COURT NOVEMBER 14, 1979
S. RANGANATHAN, J.-
M.L. Verma for the
Respondent
IT REFERENCE No. 57 OF 1971 DECIDED BY DELHI HIGH COURT NOVEMBER 14, 1979
S. RANGANATHAN, J.-
M.L. Verma for the
Respondent
Avtar Krishan Dass
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 253 of the income-tax Act, 1961 Appeals to tribunal IAC imposed on 21-12-1966 penalties under section 271(1)(c) ITO issued consequential demand notices Assessee erroneously filed appeals before AAC, as mentioned in demand notices, within stipulated time On detecting mistake on 4-12-1967, assessee transferred appeals to tribunal Tribunal dismissed appeal as time-barred attributing delay to professional incompetence and negligence Whether tribunal justified in declining condonation Held, on facts, no Facts For the assessment years 1955-56 and 1957-58, the IAC passed orders on 21-12-1966 under section 271(1)(c) imposing penalties of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 4,000, respectively. In pursuance of these orders, the ITO issued notices of demand on the same date and these were duly served. In the demand notices, it was mentioned that, if the assessee felt aggrieved by these penally orders, he could file appeals before the of the AAC of the Range within the stipulated time limit. The assessee subsequently filed appeals before the AAC within the stipulated period in the forms prescribed under section 249(1). When the appeals came up for hearing on 4-12-1967, it was pointed out that these appeals had to be preferred not to the AAC but to the Tribunal. The assessee, thereafter, obtained the memorandum of appeal filed before the AAC on 5-12-1967 and presented the appeals before the Tribunal on 5-12-1967 itself with applications for condonation of delay, which was due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal, however, declined to condone the delay by its orders dated 29-04-1969, holding that the delay was on account of professional incompetence and negligence. It, therefore, dismissed the appeals as barred by time. On reference : Held 1. The Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal on the general ground of the counsel's negligence. All the relevant facts had to be appreciated in the context of which the delay occurred in the present case. Although a reference to section 271(1)(c) was made in the demand notices, it nevertheless required the assessee to prefer an appeal to the AAC without adverting to the new provisions which prescribed an appeal against the IAC's order 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