TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 256(1) of the said Act. Inasmuch as the petitioner's application did not contain full particulars for condonation of delay, the court, by its order dated April 14, 1988, directed the petitioner's counsel to file a detailed affidavit stating the dates on which the petition was returned for defects ; when were they refiled and who was the counsel handling the brief on these different dates. Pursuant to such directions, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner. Facts relied upon by the petitioner for condonation of delay as stated in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner are stated hereunder : On May 12, 1980, one Shri M. L. Verma, the then standing counsel for the Income-tax Department filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the said Wazir Singh on February 23, 1985, and on the same date the said Wazir Singh refiled the petition with the note "objections removed". On February 28, 1985, the registry passed the same order as made on February 1, 1985. Explaining the delay of three years as noted by the registry, the petitioner has stated that there were three changes of Inspecting Assistant Commissioners up to September, 1982, viz., one Shri K: Balkrishan, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, retired on September 30, 1982. Thereafter, from October 1982 to April 1984, Shri Gujar Mal acted as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. From May 1984 to December 1984, Shri A. K. Singh acted as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. It is further stated that there were als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Tribunal dated October 25, 1979, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 256(1) was received by the petitioner on November 12, 1979. The instant application being filed on May 12, 1980, was within the period of six months from the date of service of the notice of refusal of the Tribunal's order made under section 256(1) of the said Act. Therefore, applying the principle as laid down in the case of CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 499 (Delhi), the instant petition is not barred under section 256(2) of the said Act. However, since the explanation for the delay has been stated in the supplementary affidavit, we like to deal with the same. In the instant case, the petition was returned to counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
