Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Old Village Industries P. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Direct Taxation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberITC No. 36 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1987]165ITR88(Delhi)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentOld Village Industries P. Ltd.
Excerpt:
acts/rules/orders income tax act, 1961 - section 256(2) - - as the petition was properly filed only on february 9, 1982, it is clearly barred by time......should be given in the power of attorney'. the petition was duly signed by the then standing counsel, shri m. l. verma, but it was refiled on february 9, 1982. at the same time, the power of attorney was also completed by putting the date 'may 12, 1980'. we find that there is a difference between the signatures of shri m. l. verma on the two documents but we are told that the signatures are his. so, this question does not survive. 2. the only question now surviving is that the completed petition was filed on february 9, 1982. the limitation period is six months from the date of refusal. as the petition was properly filed only on february 9, 1982, it is clearly barred by time. 3. learned counsel for the department urged that the petition was otherwise complete being accompanied by a.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. There is a preliminary objection regarding this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petition was filed on May 12, 1980. But was directed to be returned by the Deputy Registrar on May 15, 1980. There were four objections out of which we are only concerned with objections Nos. 1 and 4. The first objection was 'the petition should be duly signed by counsel'. The fourth objection was 'date of acceptance should be given in the power of attorney'. The petition was duly signed by the then standing counsel, Shri M. L. Verma, but it was refiled on February 9, 1982. At the same time, the power of attorney was also completed by putting the date 'May 12, 1980'. We find that there is a difference between the signatures of Shri M. L. Verma on the two documents but we are told that the signatures are his. So, this question does not survive.

2. The only question now surviving is that the completed petition was filed on February 9, 1982. The limitation period is six months from the date of refusal. As the petition was properly filed only on February 9, 1982, it is clearly barred by time.

3. Learned counsel for the Department urged that the petition was otherwise complete being accompanied by a affidavit and other relevant documents. But as the petition was unsigned when initially filed, it was no petition at all. This petition is dismissed. No costs.

4. Petition dismissed.


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