Amilal Agrawalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment
|Court||Orissa High Court|
|Case Number||O.J.C. No. 966 of 1969|
|Judge||G.K. Misra, C.J. and ;R.N. Misra, J.|
|Acts||Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 264(1)|
|Respondent||Commissioner of Income-tax|
|Cases Referred||Venilal Dwarkadas Mehta v. Commissioner of Income|
.....condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co......r.n. misra, j.1. the petitioner, an assessee under the income-tax act, moved the commissioner, opposite party no. 1, under section 264(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, that application was disposed of by the commissioner by order dated march 31, 1969, the revision application was rejected as being out of time.2. mr. mohanty appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of the commissioner on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing, but the opposite party no. 1 has not heard him before dismissing the revision application as being barred by limitation. he seeks to rely on the case of dwarka nath v. income-tax officer, special circle, d-ward, kanpur,  57 i.t.r. 349,  3 s.c.r. 536 (s.c.) where their lordships of the supreme court laid down that the revisional.....
R.N. Misra, J.
1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, moved the Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, under Section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, That application was disposed of by the Commissioner by order dated March 31, 1969, The revision application was rejected as being out of time.
2. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing, but the opposite party No. 1 has not heard him before dismissing the revision application as being barred by limitation. He seeks to rely on the case of Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur,  57 I.T.R. 349,  3 S.C.R. 536 (S.C.) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner was a judicial one and the assessee was entitled to a hearing of the revision petition. This court has also taken a similar view in the case of Venilal Dwarkadas Mehta v. Commissioner of Income-tax in O.J.C. No. 324 of 1965 disposed of on August 6, 1969. We would, therefore, quash the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity ,of being heard before the same was made, and would direct the Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, to hear the petitioner and dispose of the revision application afresh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would direct both the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding,
G. K. Misra, C.J.
3. I agree.