Skip to content


income-tax Officer Vs. Romesh Sethi. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Decided On
Reported in(1986)17ITD36(Chd.)
Appellantincome-tax Officer
RespondentRomesh Sethi.
Excerpt:
.....according to him support the decision of the aac. when we go through gupta & sons (p.) ltd.s case (supra) and ebrahim soofis case (supra) relied by both the parties, we find that earlier in the high court decision which supports the contention of the revenue whereas the decision in ebrahim soofis case (supra) is that from the tribunal and on the basis of these two judgments we would have accepted the contention of the learned departmental representative but we have the punjab and haryana high court decision in the case of manoj ahuja (supra) and when we go through the same carefully, we are of the view that the action of the aac calls for confirmation. in the said case, the dispute was regarding applicability of section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 and the matter was in respect of.....
Judgment:
Per Shri Ram Rattan, Accountant Member - The only dispute raised in this appeal preferred by the revenue is that the AAC was not justified to order condonation of delay in section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) application for reopening of the case made by the assessee before the ITO.2. The learned departmental representative relied on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Gupta & Sons. (P.) Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 506 (MP) against which the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment in Ebrahim Soofi v. ITO [1979] Tax 52(6)-10 (Bom - Trib.).

Besides, he reiled on the case of Manoj Ahuja v. IAC [1984] 17 Taxman 365 (Punj. & Har.) which according to him support the decision of the AAC. When we go through Gupta & Sons (P.) Ltd.s case (supra) and Ebrahim Soofis case (supra) relied by both the parties, we find that earlier in the High Court decision which supports the contention of the revenue whereas the decision in Ebrahim Soofis case (supra) is that from the Tribunal and on the basis of these two judgments we would have accepted the contention of the learned departmental representative but we have the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Manoj Ahuja (supra) and when we go through the same carefully, we are of the view that the action of the AAC calls for confirmation. In the said case, the dispute was regarding applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the matter was in respect of acquisition proceedings. Their Lordships held in the said case that section 5 would be applicable unless it is specifically excluded by any Act. On parity of reasons available in the said decision which is from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and as we are sitting at Chandigarh, we are obliged to follow the Punjab and Haryana High Court and confirm the order of the AAC.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //