Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Trilokinath on 7 December, 1982 cites

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla on 18 April, 1981

11. Section 5 of the Limitation Act will have application to an appeal under Section 269H because of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act unless it can be said that its application is " expressly excluded " by the proviso to Section 269H. A reading of the proviso will go to show that an application under it for the extension of limitation can be made only before the expiry of sixty days. It can apply only in cases where the event, which may prevent the filing of the appeal within sixty days, is within the knowledge of the appellant. The proviso cannot apply to those cases where the appellant is unaware of the cause which may prevent him in filing the appeal against a person within sixty days and, therefore, it cannot be construed to expressly or impliedly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to such cases. We do not agree with the ruling of the Patna High Court in IAC of Income-tax (Acquisition) v. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla, [1982] 133 ITR 746, on which reliance was placed by Shri Nema that the proviso to to Section 269H(1) is exhaustive and that the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is completely excluded. Now, in the instant case, the Department was not in the know of the death of Kasturilal within the period of limitation of sixty days. It was, therefore, impossible for it to apply for an extension of limitation within the proviso. The proviso does not apply to such a case. The Department is, therefore, entitled to take the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We condone the delay in making the legal representatives as parties to Appeal No. 254 of 1980. We allow the application and join them as parties. The counsel for the legal representatives was fully heard on merits also and so there is no question for any further hearing in this appeal. The argument that the order of the Tribunal against Kasturilal had become final, as no appeal was filed against the legal representatives within time, cannot be accepted. The other appeals cannot, for the same reason, be held to be barred by res judicata.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - L M Sharma - Full Document

K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981

17. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we do not accept the argument of the learned standing counsel that the Tribunal committed any error of law in reaching the finding that the fair market value of the building on the date of transfer did not exceed Rs. 1,05,000. It is well recognised that the determination of fair market value of a capital asset is generally a matter of estimate based, to some extent, on guess-work and despite the utmost bona fides, the estimate of the fair market value is bound to vary from individual to individual (See K.P. Varghese v. ITO, [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). Therefore, unless a clear error of law is discernible in the finding reached by the Tribunal on the question of fair market value, no interference can be made in an appeal under Section 269H which lies on a point of law alone.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3460 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1