| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 664 1983 SLD 664 (1983) 139 ITR 1013 |
Bombay High Court
NOVEMBER 12,1980
A.A. GINWALA AND D.B. DESHPANDE, JJ.
R.S. Pandit and R.S. Tajpuriya for the Petitioner. R.G. Deshpande and B.R. Mandlekar for the
Respondent.
NOVEMBER 12,1980
A.A. GINWALA AND D.B. DESHPANDE, JJ.
R.S. Pandit and R.S. Tajpuriya for the Petitioner. R.G. Deshpande and B.R. Mandlekar for the
Respondent.
Ghanshyamdas Gopaldas Mohta
v.
Union of India
Law:
Section:
Rule 86(2) of the second schedule to the income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 5 and 29(2) of the limitation act, 1963-recovery of tax-power of tax recovery commissioner to condone delay in filing appeal-whether in terms of section 5, read with section 29(2) of the limitation act, delay in filing appeal, being beyond the period prescribed in rule 86(2) of the second schedule, could be condoned by tax recovery commissioner even though no specific power to condone such delay has been given to him in the income-tax act-held, yes Facts After the expiry of the period prescribed under rule 86(2) of the Second Schedule, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tax Recovery Commissioner and also requested him to condone the delay. The Tax Recovery Commissioner, however, rejected the application. On writ: Held It is well settled that by virtue of section 29(2 ) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of that Act are applicable to cases where the period of limitation has been prescribed for a suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, under any special or local law, unless the said sections are specifically excluded. It is also well settled that for the application of section 5, read with section 29(2 ), of the Limitation Act, the proceedings need not originate in a civil court. In the background of the legal position stated above, the Tax Recovery Commissioner would be entitled to entertain an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and to decide the same, even though no specific power was given to him under the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tax Recovery Commissioner was quashed and he was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application on merits. Case review Vasanjt Ghela & Co. v. State of Maharashtra [1968] 22 STC 104 (Bom.) and Raghunath Agarwalla v. State of Orissa[1975] 36 ITR 461 (Ori.) applied. Cases referred to Vasanji Ghela & Co. v. State of Maharashtra [1967] 22 STC 104 (Bom.), Raghunath Agarwalla v. State of Orissa [1975] 36 STC 461 (Ori.), Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v. Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. AIR 1967 Bom. 472…
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