TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, for reference, reads as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in not condoning the delay of only five days in filing the appeal when there was sufficient cause and bona fide human error for which an affidavit was filed by the Assessing Officer covering the version of the receipt clerk for putting up the file late, and, insisting upon to file the statement on affidavit on receipt clerk, especially when the Assessing Officer had already filed his affidavit?" It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that discretion to condone or not to condone the delay would always be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igour and effective consequences. In this regard, reference can be made to the latest law in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276. The relevant portion reads as under: "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court, was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 957 SC): "A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) as erroneous in law if there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse." A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court, in the case of Brajabandhu Nanda v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 668, considering a somewhat similar question where the appeal was barred by time and reference of the question was declined, held as under: "That the questions referred were not questions of law but questions of fact since it was a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause on the facts and circumstances of each case." The consistent view is that such question would be a question of fact simpliciter and would not be covered under the provisions of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
