Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberI.T. Case No. 131 of 1985
Reported in(1986)50CTR(Raj)222
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentHindustan Zinc Limited.
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........has been recorded by it. the tribunal has rectified its order dt. 12-6-1978 on the basis of the decision of the supreme court in rajapalayam mills ltd. v. cit, by its order dt. 22-5-1984 on the law arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. that decision is correct.3. the reference application under s. 256(2) of the act is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

By the Court - Heard ld. counsel.

The CIT has filed this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short the Act) for a direction to the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (the Tribunal therein) to state the case and refer the following questions of law for our opinion, which are said to arise out of its order dt. 27-10-1983, passed in Misc. Applications No. 32 and 33/Jp/80, which arose out of ITA Nos. 1106 and 1107/Jp/76-77 :

'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in considering the miscellaneous application of the assessee and rectifying the original order beyond the time limit prescribed under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

(2) Without prejudice to the above, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was really a mistake apparent from record in the original order ?'

By order dt. 27-10-1983, the Tribunal has rectified its order dt. 12-6-1978, passed on the assessees appeal relating to the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76.

2. We have considered the order dt. 27-10-1983. The two questions proposed by the CIT in his application under s. 256(2) do not arise out of it. No finding in respect thereof has been recorded by it. The Tribunal has rectified its order dt. 12-6-1978 on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT, by its order dt. 22-5-1984 on the law arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. That decision is correct.

3. The reference application under s. 256(2) of the Act is dismissed.


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