TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1971-72. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 140A (3) to be ultra vires following the Madras High Court decision in the case of A. N. Sali Maricar [1973] 90 ITR 116, observing that at the time it was deciding the appeal, there was no decision of any other High Court taking a contrary view. It was pointed out by Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, that the position has since materially changed inasmuch as the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 825, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal and Co. [1981] 127 ITR 512 and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Sevaram v. ITO [1983] 141 ITR 933 have taken a contrary view. He argued that, in view of the conflicting views take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... today. There can be no dispute that, as on today, the legal position is that while the Madras High Court has struck down the provisions of section 140A(3) in Sali Maricar (A. M.) v. ITO [1973] 90 ITR 116, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram V. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 825, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal and Co. [1981] 127 ITR 512 and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Seva Ram v. ITO [1983] 141 ITR 933 have upheld its validity. Therefore, what is required to be examined is whether our court's judgment in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom) is applicable. It has been categorically held in that case that the Tribunal would be justified in ignoring the provisions of a statute even if there was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable cause and that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. did not apply to the case ?" The Tribunal did not refer the question to this Court observing that the assessee's submission that it did not pay the self-assessment tax in the expectation generated by the earlier commencement of the assessment proceedings that the assessment would be completed within thirty days of the filing of the return was wholly untenable. It also found that the assessee was not prevented by cause beyond its control from making the payment of tax within time. By this notice of motion, the assessee has again sought to raise the said question. It is seen that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee was preven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
