Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)Section 292B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
Section 52B in The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In reply, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down six fold principles as guidelines in connection with condo nation of delay in filing appeals.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Calcutta Discount Co., Ltd on 10 April, 1973
14. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [ 1973] 91 ITR 8 considered the order of the Tribunal rejecting by separate; order the application filed by the Income-tax Officer for amending the memorandum of appeal by raising additional grounds to the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the AAC setting aside the assessment to ascertain whether real profits were earned or not, when a parent company sold certain shares at less than market value to its subsidiary company. The Tribunal also later on rejected summarily the appeal filed by the department on the ground that necessary pleas were not taken. The High Court held that the reference application in respect of the order rejecting application was not competent and declined to answer other questions raised by the department. The Supreme Court considered the third question whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal summarily and held that though the Tribunal, being unduly influenced by procedural technicalities instead of dealing with the substance of the matter, had erred in rejecting the appeal summarily, because the AAC's conclusion was fully in accordance with law, any answer to the third question would become academic and that the court would not, therefore, answer that question. It is pertinent to consider the relevant observations of the Supreme Court at page 11 of the judgment which read as under:
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K. Padmalochan Sahu on 4 September, 1973
15. It is also necessary to refer to the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Addl CIT v. K. Padmalochan Sahu [1974] 95 ITR 113. In that case, father and son constituted HUF. An appeal before the AAC was filed by the authorised representative. The AAC issued show-cause notice as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as incompetent. By letter dated 23-8-1967 the assessee contended that, that was a curable defect and on the same day he filed another set of appeals signed by the son. The AAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that they were not signed by the Karta of the HUF. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that though the karta should have signed the memo, yet the appeal was allowed with a direction to give further opportunity to rectify the defect, namely, to allow the karta to sign the appeal memo and thereafter dispose of the matter, according to law. The Orissa High Court at page 115 of the judgment held that the defect was an illegality for which opportunity is to be given for rectification. According to the Orissa High Court, if after giving the opportunity the defect is not removed, then the memorandum of appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Pyrkes Wine Stores vs Fifth Income-Tax Officer. on 9 March, 1984
16. The Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A' in the case of Pyrkes Wine Stores v. Fifth ITO [1984] 9 ITD 93 considered the case of an assessee where the appeal memorandum was filed in time, but signed by the assessee-firm's authorised advocate. Amended memorandum was signed by the partner after the prescribed time. It was held by the Tribunal that the appeal should be admitted for consideration on merits.
Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar And ... on 1 September, 1969
18. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments go to show that the defect in the stamp paper was a mere irregularity which could have been cured by giving the assessee an opportunity of rectifying it and this could have been rectified by obtaining a new stamp paper or the assessee filing memorandum of appeal duly signing the appeal papers himself. In that case the rectification related back to the date of filing of original memorandum of appeal and the appeal as rectified is valid and competent. Even though the majority of the High Courts have preferred to use the phraseology of "mere irregularity" and not "an illegality", the Orissa High Court preferred to use the phraseology of "an illegality" but which could be set right by giving an opportunity to rectify the defect and in that case it will be a valid and competent appeal. It is only when the defect remained unrectified even after giving an opportunity to do so it becomes an illegality and incompetent because the Rule is mandatory in nature. This ratio will not apply to the case of the assessee because the facts on record clearly show that on the very date of hearing of the show-cause notice issued by the CWT(A), namely 27-9-1991, the assessee has duly filed memorandum of appeal properly signed by the assessee himself, a fact which has been acknowledged by the CWT(A) in his order given in the second set of appeals. However, the amended memorandum of appeals filed by the assessee on 27-9-1991 could not be treated as revised memorandum of appeal so as to come to the conclusion that the assessee is not entitled to file such revised memorandum of appeal, as the judgment of the Courts cited clearly show that the fresh memorandum of appeal filed by the assessee is by way of rectification of the original set of appeals filed by the duly authorised general power of attorney. As stated earlier, the bona fides of the circumstances leading to the execution of general power of attorney and filing of memorandum of appeal by the general power of attorney etc. are not in doubt.