Collector Of Customs vs S.B. Plastic Industries And Ors. on 24 February, 1986
4. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the learned JDR, has stated that he has got instructions from the Collector of Customs, Bombay that no affidavit is to be filed, the matter is to be argued on the basis of the application for condonation of delay already on record. He has pleaded that in addition to the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay, he would like to base his arguments on the ground that there had been no effective service of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962. He has pleaded that there had been no service of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay on the Collector of Customs, Bombay. He has pleaded that there is no dispute as to the dates. The Collector of Customs, Bombay became aware of these orders on 3.9,85 and he had authorised the Assistant Collector, Co-ordination Wing to file an appeal on behalf of the Revenue. He has also pleaded that the file was located on 30.8.85 and the appeal was given to the Collector on 4.10.85 for filing the same before the Tribunal. He has referred to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hind Development Corporation v. ITO reported in 118 ITR 873 wherein the Hon. High Court, had held that in terms of the provisions of Section 250(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the date of service on the Commissioner of Income Tax is deemed to be the date from which the limitation will start to run for filing an appeal to the Tribunal. In that case the Income Tax Officer had obtained a copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under executive instructions of the Commissioner on 7A.72. The Appellate Asstt. Commissioner had communicted a copy of his order to Commissioner of Income Tax in compliance with the provisions of Section 250(7) on 12.5.72. The appeal was filed on 4.7.72. The assessee had contended that the Income Tax Officer had acted as agent of the Commissioner and as such, the date of the service of the order on the Income Tax Officer was the date of service of the order on Commissioner. The Tribunal had accepted the contention of the assessee, and being aggrieved, the Revenue had filed a writ application before the Calcutta High Court and the Hon. High Court had held that date of service in terms of Section 250(7) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is the date on which the Commissioner had received the order from the office of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax".