1987 (7) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessment to the assessee ". The Department's case was that the draft order was forwarded on March 30, 1982. Admittedly, the order was received on April 5, 1982, by the assessee. When the matter reached the stage of the Tribunal, the Tribunal referred to the contention of the assessee that the expression "forward" includes the fact of service also. This contention, the Tribunal positively negatived, by observing as follows : ". . . While we do not find any substance in the assessee's contention that the expression 'forward' should include the fact of service also on the assessee, there seems to be some force in the contention that in the facts of this particular case it could be said that the draft order was forwarded only after 31st day o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er being forwarded. It must be noted that the draft order was not sent by the Income-tax Officer through post and if he had done so before 31st of March, 1982, then there may be justification for holding that he has forwarded the order within the time though it may be received by the assessee after the date allowing time for transmission of the order by the postal authorities." These observations, therefore, indicate that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the order was put in the process of communication only after March 31, 1982. However, an apparently contrary observation was made by the Tribunal at the end of paragraph 23 of the order which has given rise to the present petition. The finding is as follows "The Income-tax Off .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal. The correctness of the view which the Tribunal has taken that the order was forwarded after March 31, 1982, is not put in issue in any question. That finding is not challenged. Therefore, even assuming for moment that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has taken the view that the order should have been served before March 31, 1982, the question as suggested does not at all arise out of the order of the Tribunal, since the Tribunal has decided that the meaning of the word "forward" is only "to put in process of communication". That is the meaning which was canvassed by the Revenue. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 250.  
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X