Skip to content


Madan Lal Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 6 of 1959
Reported in[1963]50ITR447(P& H)
AppellantMadan Lal
Respondentincome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.
Cases ReferredBuria v. Gobind Ram
Excerpt:
.....order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases..........certain question of law to be referred to this court for decision. the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal was in this case made on the 7th of august, 1958. the petition in this court was filed on the 6th of february, 1959, but to that petition only the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi, was made a party as a respondent and the income-tax commissioner concerned was not named as a party. this omission appears to have been realised after a lot of time had elapsed and it was only on the 20th of december, 1960, that an application was made to correct the omission. the application stated that the name of the income-tax commissioner was accidentally missed from the petition and instead that of the income-tax appellate tribunal inserted. mr. sibbal admits that if the income-tax.....
Judgment:

This is an application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act demanding certain question of law to be referred to this court for decision. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was in this case made on the 7th of August, 1958. The petition in this court was filed on the 6th of February, 1959, but to that petition only the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, was made a party as a respondent and the Income-tax Commissioner concerned was not named as a party. This omission appears to have been realised after a lot of time had elapsed and it was only on the 20th of December, 1960, that an application was made to correct the omission. The application stated that the name of the Income-tax Commissioner was accidentally missed from the petition and instead that of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal inserted. Mr. Sibbal admits that if the Income-tax Commissioner is now joined as a party or is ordered to be joined with effect from the 20th of December, 1960, the application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act would be hopelessly barred by time. He prays, therefore, that the delay might be condoned and the period of limitation extended under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The only ground mentioned for the delay and for the extension prayed for is that a mistake was committed in mentioning the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as the sole respondent instead of the Income-tax Commissioner. The explanation is hardly satisfactory. In a very similar case a Division Bench of this court in Keshav Silk Mills v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi [Since reported in [1962] 45 I. T. R. 189.] (Income Tax Case No. 9 of 1959, decided on the 12th of January, 1961), refused to excuse the omission and the consequent delay in impleading the proper party. In the present case no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming why the Income-tax Commissioner known to everybody to be the really interested person should have been together omitted from the list of respondents and instead of him being the sole respondent, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal should have been named and we see no reason for taking a view different from the one adopted by the Division Bench in Keshav Silk Mills v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [Since reported in [1962] 45 I. T. R. 189.] Mr. Sibbal has, in this connection, referred to a Full Bench decision of this court in Notified Area Committee, Buria v. Gobind Ram [[1959] 61 P. L. R. 326 (F. B.)]. The facts of that case, however, were entirely different, for there instead of five respondents four had been named in the appeal and the name of the fifth was accidentally missed, because his name did not appear in the copy of the judgment, although he was a party and did figure in the decree. The view the Full Bench took in that case was that in appropriate cases the court has inherent power to rectify such a mistake and extend the period of limitation. The present case is entirely different, for here the only party who should have been named was not so named and the application originally filed was thus meaningless and it was only in December, 1960, that an attempt was made to include the only proper party as the respondent. We do not think that any case for extending the period of limitation has been made out and we, therefore, dismiss this petition as time-barred. There will, however, be no order as to costs.


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