9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of the consolidated order dated 17-6-1986 of the Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The three questions raised in each of them are identical. The Reference Applications were filed on2-4-1987. 2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the assessee respondent to the effect that these applications were barred by time as they were late by 220 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in the letter dated24-9-1987of the Commissioner of Income-tax,Delhi(Central) II,New Delhi: "Please refer to your letter dated20-8-1987wherein it has been pointed out that aforementioned RAs. filed by the Deptt. are barred by 220 days. On going through the Receipt Register maintained in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I New Delhi, it is found that the order in ITA No. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so the decisions referred to above. The first point which requires to be noticed is that according to the office report, the service of the order in question was twice refused, i.e., on26-6-1986and24-7-1986later the dak counter of the CIT (Central) accepted the service on2-2-1987. The fact that the service was so refused on26-6-1986and24-7-1986is established by the peon books. All official acts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned Officer/Official of the department. In fact in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. the Supreme Court repelled the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the Excise and Customs department that the Collector of Customs being a very responsible and a high ranking officer, there was no possibility of the power being misused or being used arbitrarily. The Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have condemned a delay of more than 30 days under section 27(2). Here since service, by refusal, was made on26-6-1986the delay was of 220 days which could not be condoned. The assessee respondent's preliminary objection has therefore to be upheld and as a result, these Reference Applications will have to be rejected in limine as time barred. In view of the preliminary objection, the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
