| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1741 2000 SLD 1741 2000 PTD 1564 |
Kerala High Court
Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1993, decision dated: 24th October 1996.
V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARYANA KURUP, JJ
Joseph Vallamattom and V. J. Kurian Vallamattom for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner.
Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1993, decision dated: 24th October 1996.
V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARYANA KURUP, JJ
Joseph Vallamattom and V. J. Kurian Vallamattom for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner.
JOSEPH KURUVILLA
VS
. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section:
[Indian Income Tax Act, 1961]......Appellate Tribunal---Rectification of mistakes---Advocate---Role of lawyer---Counsel for assessee not raising particular issue at time of hearing by oversight ---Assessee filing miscellaneous petition contending laches of counsel should not make a litigant suffer---Tribunal holding that issues should be deemed to have been decided against assessee or alternatively it could be presumed that same not pressed before Tribunal---Tribunal dismissing miscellaneous petition---No error of law- Courts have always considered counsel, who, are members of the Bar, as officers of the Court. If the lawyer is considered in the context of the litigation, he has to be understood to have a discretion as to whether to argue a particular point or not. In any proceedings, the role of the lawyer has to be appreciated in the context of his discretion flowing from his engagement in the proceedings. Especially in the context of a litigation urging that he did not raise the issue at the time of hearing by oversight the above background would have to be meaningfully understood in the context of the role of the lawyer. The High Court, being concerned with a situation with reference to the averment relating to the mistake of counsel or his oversight, has to understand and appreciate the situation in the context of the discretion available to him. The assessee filed a- miscellaneous petition and contended that its counsel did not raise a particular issue at the time of hearing by oversight and such a situation would not preclude the assessee from raising it now since laches on the part of counsel, should not make the litigant suffer. The Tribunal held that it considered it to be a situation deemed to have been decided against the assessee or alternatively it should be presumed that the concerned issue was not pressed before the Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous petition. On a reference: Held, that if the Tribunal, while rejecting the application, had observed that it should be deemed to have been decided against the assessee or at least it could be presumed that the concerned issue was not pressed before the Tribunal, would have to be…
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