| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 487 1967 SLD 487 (1967) 66 ITR 319 |
Delhi High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 1 OF 1963, AUGUST 24, 1967
S.K. KAPUR AND M.M. ISMAIL, JJ.
A.N. Kirpal and Dalip K. Kapur for the Applicant
IT REFERENCE No. 1 OF 1963, AUGUST 24, 1967
S.K. KAPUR AND M.M. ISMAIL, JJ.
A.N. Kirpal and Dalip K. Kapur for the Applicant
R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala
VS
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 30 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Commissioner (Appeals) - Appealable orders - Assessee filed loss return after expiry of prescribed time - Neither assessee sought for extension of time nor ITO granted same suo motu - ITO declined to entertain return and treated it as invalid - Whether right of appeal is not general but is confined only to orders expressly specified under section 30 of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether, in instant case, ITO's order clearly fell outside pale of section 30 of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee might invoke revisional jurisdiction of Commissioner, but he could not appeal - Held, yes - Whether, consequently, Tribunal rightly held that assessee's appeal before AAC was incompetent - Held, yes FACTS The assessee filed the loss return after the time prescribed had expired. Neither the assessee asked for the extension of time nor was the same granted by the ITO suo motu. The ITO treated the return as invalid. On appeal, the AAC decided that the appeal under section 30 of the 1922 Act was not competent and also expressed agreement with the ITO that the return was not valid. On further appeal, the Tribunal decided that the ITO treated the return as invalid and refused to deal with the merits or to apply his mind thereto and consequently the said order could not be construed as an order computing the loss at nil.In the result, the Tribunal held that the appeal before the AAC was incompetent. On reference: HELD There is no inherent right of appeal and its existence must depend on the terms of the statute. In case there is any ambiguity, the relevant provision must be construed in favour of the right. The question, therefore, turns on the interpretation of section 30 of 1922 Act. In the instant case the ITO never applied his judicial mind to the merits of the case. He merely declined to entertain the return. There had, therefore, been neither assessment of income under section 23 of 1922 Act nor computation of loss under section 24 of 1922 Act nor determination of the amount of tax under section 23 of 1922 Act. The right of appeal conferred by section 30…
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