TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. (2) Whether the delay in postal delivery can be considered as constituting sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period . In pursuance of this order of the Court, a statement of case was submitted by the Income-tax Tribunal on 22-6-1959. Hence, these references which were analogously heard. 2. The matter arose in the following circumstances; on 5-2-1954, the assessee received the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the 56th day from the said date on 2-4-1954, the assessee sent three appeals against the said order by registered post addressed to the Income-tax Tribunal, then at Bombay, in one packet. On 7-4-1954 the said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion that the two questions mentioned above do arise for the Court's opinion on the facts of this case. Thereafter on 22-6-1959 the Tribunal submitted a statement ot case referring the said question to the High Court as aforesaid. 3. The only point for decision herein is the point of limitation. In view of the latest Full Bench decision in Govinda Choudhury v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, Patna, (S. J. C. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1956 D/- 11-4-1960): (AIR 1960 Orissa 187) overruling the previous Division Bench decision ot this Court in Sri Popsing Rice Mills, Bhadrak v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, 1949-17 ITR 420: (AIR 1949 Orissa 53). I am or opinion that the said points referred to this Court for opinion arc not quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the office of the Tribunal at Bombay, it is clear that the appeals were received by the Registrar out of time. We have discussed the general mandatory aspect of the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder in our decision in (S. J. C. Nos. 4 and 5 o 1956): (AIR 1960 Orissa 187) (FB) referred to above. 4. Mr. D. Bhuyan, learned counsel On behalf of the assessee petitioner, strongly urged that the provisions of Section 33(2A) of the Act giving power to the Tribunal to condone delay should be liberally construed. In support of his contentions he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumani Mangaraj, AIR 1954 SC 411 which was decided in the context of the provisions of Section 85, Proviso of the Repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emed to have been presented on the day on which it is received in the office or the Tribunal at Bombay. It is on sound principle that in enforcing revenue laws, such clearly mandatory provisions should be made imperative. Thus the Supreme Court decision does not support the assessee's contentions. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee also contended that though a Court of appeal would not interfere, if the discretion, which is a Judicial act, has been judiciously exercised by the lower Court : but if it is found to have been exercised arbitrarily or on a wrong conception of law, it is equally the duty of an appellate Court to interfere with it and pass an order which would be in the circumstances in consonance with justice and in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
