TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were dismissed. These appeals had been filed by the Income-tax Officer before the Tribunal because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs which had been levied on the petitioner herein by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Under the provision of section 254(3), the aforesaid order dated April 21, 1989, was served on the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, on April 28, 1989. The Chief Commissioner, in his turn, served the said order on the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central I), on August 14, 1989. By reckoning the period of 60 days within which the reference application has to be filed, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central-I), filed an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Chief Commissioner is to be ignored. Explaining the historical background, it was submitted that the Tribunal was finding it difficult to serve its orders on the relevant Commissioner of Income-tax, Due to frequent changes in jurisdiction, which changes were never or seldom intimated to the Tribunal, it was not known as to who was the Commissioner who had administrative charge over the Income-tax Officer who had filed the appeal decided by the Tribunal. In order to obviate this difficulty, the Legislature amended section 254(3) and the result of this was that orders could be served either on the Commissioner of Income-tax or on the Chief Commissioner. The purpose of amending the said sub-section clearly was to enable the Tribunal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under section 256(1). The said provision is clear and unequivocal and it is only when either the assessee or the Commissioner is served with the notice of an order under section 254 that they can, thereafter, file an application under section 256(1). Similar contention had been raised before us in ITC No. 25 of 1990. CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. P. Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 330 (Delhi). In that case, the order under section 256(1) had been served on the Chief Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax had filed an application under section 256(2) and it was contended by the assessee that the date of service on the Chief Commissioner would be the starting point of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
