Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 3266 1987 SLD 3266 (1987) 166 ITR 415
Allahabad High Court

A.N. VARMA AND V.K. KHANNA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

Munnalal Shrikishan

Law:

Section:

Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court - Reference to -Whether reference to six months in section 256(2) is to six calendar months and there is nothing in context of section 256(2) to warrant meaning assigned to word 'month' as consisting of 30 days - Held, yes FACTS The assessee raised a preliminary objection that as the notice of refusal by the Tribunal under section 256(1) was served on the Commissioner on 25-6-1986 and the application filed by it on 1-1-1987, was barred by limitation by six days. It was urged that the period prescribed under section 256(2) was six months which ought to be taken as 180 days. HELD There is nothing in the context of section 256(2) to warrant the meaning assigned to the word "month" as consisting of 30 days. The reference to six months in section 256(2) is to six calendar months. The preliminary objection was, therefore, overruled. CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 285 (All.). Bharatji Agrawal for the Applicant. B.N. Bhatnagar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J.-Before we deal with the questions raised at the instance of the Revenue we may dispose of a preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee. Sri B.N. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that in view of the fact that notice of refusal by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax on June 25, 1986, the application filed by it on January 1, 1987, was barred by limitation by six days. It was urged that the period prescribed under section 256(2) is six months which ought to be taken as 180 days. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. [1974] 97 ITR 285, in support of his contention that the limitation should be calculated treating each of the six months as meaning 30 days. We are unable to agree with this contention. The decision cited by learned counsel for the assessee was in the context of…
🔒
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