TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. No. 1914 of 2010) is for condonation of delay of 286 days in filing the accompanying appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short hereafter referred to as "the Act"), the review petition seeking recall of the order dated June 16, 2010, passed in M. C. No. 1914 of 2010, reject- ing the appeal on the ground that as on the date this court had no power to condone such delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short hereafter referred to as "the Act, 1963"). 2. Register the review application. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant/review applicant and Dr. A. K. Saraf, senior advocate assisted by Ms. N. Hawelia, advocate for the opposite party. 4. The aforenoted appeal bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the retrospective amend- ment of section 260A occasioned by the Finance Act, 2010, empowering this court to entertain an application for condonation of delay with effect from October 1, 1998, the order dated June 16, 2010, suffers from error apparent on the face of record and is liable to be reviewed in the interest of justice, Dr. Saraf, has emphatically contended to the contrary. According to the learned senior counsel, if such a plea is entertained vis-a-vis cases finally closed, it would amount to expanding the contours of review jurisdiction on grounds inconceivable in law. Emphasizing that the power of review is not inherent and ought to be endowed by law. Dr. Saraf has urged that amend- ment of law with retrospective effect by no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for condonation of delay, it was empowered as well to condone the same on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause, therefore. Admittedly, again, the amendment was provided a retrospective effect from October 1, 1998. By a legal fiction, therefore, the amended section 260A, as above, was on the statute book, with effect from October 1, 1998. 11. The apex court in A. C. Estates, AIR 1966 SC 935, had disapproved the invocation of the power of review contemplated under Order 47 of rule 1 of the Code on the ground of some subsequent event. 12. That a subsequent decision by a court or a subsequent alteration of law is not a ground of review under Order 47 of the Code was enunciated by the Calcutta High Court in Surajmull Choteyl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of justice would only be rectified by the exercise of the corrective jurisdiction inherent in court. 14. In Raja Shatrunji [1971] 2 SCC 200, the apex court was seized with a fact situation strikingly identical to the one as obtains herein. The appellant therein had obtained a decree on October 4, 1939, under the U. P. Encum- bered Estates Act, 1934, for a sum of Rs. 1,31,040-10 with cost and future interest. The heirs and legal representatives of the judgment debtor there- after applied for reduction of the decretal amount under section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952 (Act XV of 1953), which was rejected. An appeal was preferred against the same, which was heard on November 27, 1962 (XX of 1962), by the Full Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he apex court in State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak, AIR 1953 SC 244, was relied upon : "When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclu- sion." 17. The observations of Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109 to the following effect was also recalled : "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivered by the apex court in Raja Shatrunji [1971] 2 SCC 200. Having regard to the state of law as pro- pounded in Raja Shatrunji [1971] 2 SCC 200 we are of the view that the application for review has merit. The amended section 260A being, by virtue of a legal fiction on the statute book with effect from October 1, 1998, the order dated June 16, 2010, cannot be allowed to continue. In that view of the matter, the order dated June 16, 2010, referred to hereinabove is hereby recalled. 21. In view of this determination, M. C. No. 1914 of 2010 is restored. Having regard to the decision rendered by this court in CIT v. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 428 (Gauhati) ; [2011] 6 GLR 110, the delay of 286 days in preferring the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
